I strongly suggest anyone thinking of taking "Quackwatch" as a good source of information read this article and the rest of the site first. Not only is the founder not a successful doctor as one might assume, but has admited (according to the site) that the sole purpose of his enterprise is to cause harm to non-allopathic practitioners. He also seems to recieve funding from unknown sources, around 1.4 million according the the sites calculations.

From the article linked to the name "Stephen Barrett" on the page http://www.quackpotwatch.org/
(Apologies for the rude tone, worth repeating anyways)

***
The Internet needs health information it can trust. Stephen Barrett doesn't provide it...

Barrett is one of those people whose ambitions and opinions of himself far exceeds his abilities. Without ANY qualifications he has set himself up as an expert in just about everything having to do with health care - and more.

And this from a man who is a professional failure.

Records show that Barrett never achieved any success in the medical profession. His claim to being a "retired Psychiatrist" is laughable. He is, in fact, a "failed Psychiatrist," and a "failed MD."

The Psychiatric profession rejected Barrett years ago, for Barrett could NOT pass the examinations necessary to become "Board Certified." Which, is no doubt why Barrett was, throughout his career, relegated to lower level "part time" positions.

Barrett, we know, was forced to give up his medical license in Pennsylvania in 1993 when his "part-time" employment at the State Mental Hospital was terminated, and he had so few (nine) private patients during his last five years of practice, that he couldn't afford the Malpractice Insurance premiums Pennsylvania requires.

In a job market in the United States, where there is a "doctor shortage," Stephen Barrett, after his termination by the State mental Hospital, couldn't find employment. He was in his mid-50s at the time. He should have been at the top of his craft - yet, apparently, he couldn't find work.

It is obvious, that, after one humiliation after another, in 1993 Barrett simply gave up his medical aspirations, turned in his MD license, and retreated, in bitterness and frustration, to his basement.

It was in that basement, where Barrett took up "quackbusting" - which, in reality, means that Barrett attacks "cutting-edge" health professionals and paradigms - those that ARE achieving success in their segment of health care.

And there, in "quackbusting" is where Barrett finally found the attention and recognition he seems to crave - for, a while, that is, until three California Judges, in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court decision, took a HARD look at Barrett's activities, and declared him "biased, and unworthy of credibility."

...
Barrett, we know, along with his website, is currently named, among other things, in a racketeering (RICO) case in Federal Court in Colorado.

He's also being sued for his nefarious activities in Ontario, Canada.

Barrett, in the Canadian case, has formally admitted, according to Canadian law, to a number of situations put to him by the Plaintiff, including:

"The sole purpose of the activities of Barrett & Baratz are to discredit and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative health therapies or products available, and advocates of non-allopathic therapies and health freedom."

"Barrett has interfered with the civil rights of numerous Americans, in his efforts to have his critics silenced."

"Barrett has strategically orchestrated the filing of legal actions in improper jurisdictions for the purpose of frustrating the victims of such lawsuits and increasing his victims costs."

"Barrett failed the exams he was required to pass to become a Board Certified Medical Doctor."

[ 09 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

[ 11 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

quote:

---

The folks at Quackwatch claim they have no financial and or political ties to government/corporations. Anyone can say this, but it would be difficult to prove. Actions, attitudes and results speak louder than words. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” From what I’ve read on this website, it appears that the writers are extremely one- sided in their views and seem inclined to attack and ridicule.

They speak a lot about “approved studies” and base many of their conclusions on these studies, many of which are carried out by universities and government agencies which are funded by the drug companies. Of course, many drug companies directly carry out their own research studies. Doesn’t it seem very likely that their studies would be heavily biased?

---

That's the reason those who make a fortune out of duping the public with phoney MS remedies, extremely expensive water masquerading as homeopathic medicine, chiropractors, sellers of 'herbal' remedies that have no known benefit, but cost plenty spend a lot of effort to slander Barrett.

Stephen Barrett performs a very valuable service to the community in exposing the fraud artists and quacks for what they are. They are people who prey upon the sick and ignorant, proffering little more than bad advice and very expensive concoctions of nothing.

Barrett, in the Canadian case, has formally admitted, according to Canadian law, to a number of situations put to him by the Plaintiff, including:

"The sole purpose of the activities of Barrett & Baratz are to discredit and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative health therapies or products available, and advocates of non-allopathic therapies and health freedom."

"Barrett has interfered with the civil rights of numerous Americans, in his efforts to have his critics silenced."

"Barrett has strategically orchestrated the filing of legal actions in improper jurisdictions for the purpose of frustrating the victims of such lawsuits and increasing his victims costs."

"Barrett failed the exams he was required to pass to become a Board Certified Medical Doctor."

Is the above true, or is it not? Please correct me if the info is incorrect.

With a million plus dollars seemingly at his disposal (and if so, where does it come from, and why?), it would appear that he would have the funds to successfully sue the pants off of the author of the quackpotwatch site if the claims contained within were indeed false. The opposite seems to be the case, Mr. Barrett seems to have a very poor track record in the courts, which would only be expected with a man of his funding if the evidence did not back him up.

For my part, I have found the site to be very one sided, as if he were a puppet of the drug companies. Why is there no mention of the 250000 or so deaths per year due to iatrogenic causes, as reported in the highly popular allopathic journal JAMA - Journal of the American Medical Association, and relayed here: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001351
Also search the sites linked below for excellent work that shows the efficacy and safety of vitamins for many conditions, something that Mr. Stephen Barrett would simply ignore, while resorting to insults, as seems to be his way. It does not take a psychologist to realize that those who make slander (ie. every non-allopath is refered to as a "quack", itself not even a scientific term) a part of every statement are probably using it as a smokescreen to obscure attempts at genuine reasoning or research.

The site I linked was harsh, but seems to be able to back up it's claims with research and very numerous court decisions going against Mr. Barrett. Again, correct me if this is incorrect.

Should we really believe that everything not drug, surgery, or radiation related is useless, regardless of hundreds or thousands of years of successful and safe use, as with TCM - Traditional Chinese Medicine? Are the Chinese people truly complete idiots, and their doctors complete frauds, or do the millions of people reporting cures for numerous problems over the years maybe have a point? Should we be surprised that the organizations funded and operated by allopaths would not do proper studies on competing modalities, or offer solid reporting of these studies when they show good results? Are you aware that the US government censors vitamin studies on its largest sites, as referenced in Dr. Andrew Saul's latest newsletter (Vol 5, no. 12) http://www.doctoryourself.com/backissues.html? Are the increasing rates of many diseases that we see today coming from nowhere, and untreatable by such things as diet, or perhaps are we being mislead?
http://www.mercola.com/2001/aug/15/perception.htm

See also:
http://www.thebirdman.org/Index/Health/Health-Quack.html for a decent critique of the quackwatch site.

[ 09 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:
And there, in "quackbusting" is where Barrett finally found the attention and recognition he seems to crave - for, a while, that is, until three California Judges, in a PUBLISHED Appeals Court decision, took a HARD look at Barrett's activities, and declared him "biased, and unworthy of credibility."

---

I don't know much about Steven Barrett, and I'm critical of drug companies, just as I'm critical of quack "practitioners" who pretend that a non-existent particle in a homeopathic remedy will cure you. But I do know that judges usually aren't scientists. Indeed, it seems to me that in the US right now, the best way to become a judge is to be a "creation scientist".

Furthermore, it's quite reasonable, if someone believes that certain naturopathic remedies like magnet therapy, homeopathic water, and other snake oils like that are "quack" remedies, and that person makes a site aimed at exposing them, that the intention of the site is to try to get people not to rely on those remedies and to put the people who push them out of business.

[ 09 September 2005: Message edited by: Michelle ]

http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/crhsurgery.html

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Mr. Barrett is a less than credible authority figure to judge the usefulness of alternative practices. The man has had a less than stellar career so who is he to judge.

---

Interesting about Mr. Barrett and his partner on the .pdf file (mary123's last post). Is psychiatry different than most fields, or does that many different positions (pg. 4), with none of them being full time suggest a problem somewhere?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Furthermore, it's quite reasonable, if someone believes that certain naturopathic remedies like magnet therapy, homeopathic water, and other snake oils like that are "quack" remedies, and that person makes a site aimed at exposing them, that the intention of the site is to try to get people not to rely on those remedies and to put the people who push them out of business.

---

Homeopathy can and does work, the unusual physics behind it aside. So does aromatherapy, as might be shown by the effect of smell on mood, or by tests on bacteria.

http://nutraingredients.com/news/ng.asp?id=56962&n=dh357&c=GICenlwpeazyefa
Researchers at the University of Manchester say they have identified three essential oils that killed MRSA and E. coli as well as many other bacteria and fungi within just two minutes of contact.

The oils, which have not been revealed in order to protect the university's rights to the findings, could be easily blended into soaps and shampoos for use by hospital staff to stop the spread of the deadly bacteria.

Peter Warn from the university's Faculty of Medicine said: “We believe that our discovery could revolutionise the fight to combat MRSA and other ‘super bugs'.

Much in theoretical and particle physics wouldn't seem to make sense, but happens nonetheless. For example, respected physicist Michio Kaku http://www.mkaku.org/ believes that gravity may be a pushing - not a pulling - force. He even wrote a book on it, as has Walter C Wright. Mr. Wrights's apparently even have a number of simple experiments demonstating the theory. As Albert Einstein once said, "Common sense is the collection of prejudices acquired by age eighteen."

Some other of his quotes:
http://rescomp.stanford.edu/~cheshire/EinsteinQuotes.html
- "Imagination is more important than knowledge."
- "In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep."
- "The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."
- "Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."

I'll take the advise of Einstein (or Andrew Weil, Gary Null, Harvey Diamond, or nobel winner Linus Pauling, all of whom Mr. Barrett has attacked) over the views of Mr. Barrett's any day.

[ 11 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

It starts off innocently enough with your doctor saying "Oh you have a little bit of cholesterol, we'll just start you off on these cholesterol-lowering drugs (statins). Then you have to take another pill or 4 to offset the side effects of the original pill while your original ailment (cholesterol) is never really cured. Then you are pretty much on the road to forever battling the nasty side effects and discomfort that comes along from the original ailment. You will be on the merry go round ride to hell. And visiting your doctor, clinics and hospitals will become a revolving door to your new part time job in life.

Here's some bed time reading for all ye who believe big pharma is the God at whose altar you worship at.

Horror bedtime stories.

Mr. Barrett pretty much attacks any practice that is not linked to big pharma and which big pharma does not profit from, so yes there is something fishy about his site.

Speaking of fishy, Omega 3 fish oils are very good for you actually.

Listen believe what you want to believe just leave me my freedom to decide how I want to heal myself and not put my choice, my health decisions into big pharma's hands to decide for me. Maybe some people need to be treated like children and told what to take by the medical authorities. For me, I'll be responsible for my own health and I'll decide how I heal myself. It's freedom of choice. Big pharma does not have the answers for my health so leave me be free to decide for myself and for my health what I choose. We don't all need big brother pharma to 'help' us.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:

Homeopathy can and does work, the unusual physics behind it aside. So does aromatherapy, as might be shown by the effect of smell on mood, or by tests on bacteria.

---

I think we now know where you stand, you have already made up your mind about anyone that dares to refute your beliefs.

Please state any evidence, any data, that could support your claims that homeopathy works or aromatherapy works better than a placebo.

As Michelle noted above, the non-existant particles in these homeopahtic products put into question the claims of the companies that peddle homeopathic remedies. They are no more effective than a placebo. For example so many homeopathic remedies claim to have a solution that remedies something, and they dilute it to the point that there is unlikely to be one single molecule of the origional solution in the bottle (Avogadro's number). This takes us back to High School chemistry .

620,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 or a little more than 6 followed by 23 zeroes, in scientific notation 6.02 x 10 ^23, is the number of Atoms or Molecules in a Mole.

or if you wish, The number of molecules in a mole of a substance, approximately 6.023 x 1023. (A mole is the number of grams of a substance equal to its molecular weight.)
That is, if there are an Avogadro's number of molecules of a substance of molecular weight "X", one has "X" grams of that substance.

A 30X dilution means that the original substance has been diluted 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times. In terms of probability, in order for a homeopahtic remedy to contain one molecule of the original solution a person wishing to consume a 30C solution would have to have at least one molecule of the original substance dissolved in a minimum of 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 molecules of water. This would require a container more than 30,000,000,000 times the size of the Earth.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:
From the article linked to the name "Stephen Barrett" on the page http://www.quackpotwatch.org/
(Apologies for the rude tone, worth repeating anyways)

---

There exists freedom of choice in religion there should be freedom of choice in health care/healing modalities. One pharma pill does not fit all. And this is what the pharmaceutical industry is trying to do-one pill to fit all people, all genders, all races, all body types. This is folly.

Another big danger is big pharma not getting their quality control issues in order in their rush to bring their patents to market asap. It's only 10-20 years down the line that we find out they hid the really bad test results and fooled us. Remember the cigarette studies many moons ago "Oh it's safe don't worry cigarette smoking is completely safe, trust us."
"Trust us."
Remember Vioxx.
Remember Celebrex.

The fact that the Bush administration is beholden to big pharma for funding their election campaigns is another big red flag. Quality controls will go out the window in the mad rush for profits.

My good health (thank God!!)is too precious to be entrusted to a stressed out and diseased medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex.

quote:

---

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:

I think we now know where you stand, you have already made up your mind about anyone that dares to refute your beliefs.

Please state any evidence, any data, that could support your claims that homeopathy works or aromatherapy works better than a placebo.

---

"X is bunk" is not a refutation of X (regardless of ones belief), it is a claim, and in this case an incorrect one. That one would resort to name calling in my mind does not make the claim likely to be true, and often means the opposite, as I see it.

I have used homeopathy with success, as have other people I know. Neither I nor the others had any great belief in homeopathy prior to our experiences, making the idea that it was all placebo effect unlikely. The same goes for aromatherapy, as does the article linked.

I would invite anyone wishing to experience the effect of homeopathy to try either Rescue Remedy or Arnica cream for muscle pain, or Rescue Remedy drops for high levels of stress or anxiety.
Note the level of pain/anxiety, try the products, and then wait 1-5 minutes and again note the level of pain/anxiety. This will not work for everyone, but will work for most if honestly tried, in my opinion. I suspect 70 percent or more will experience notable relief from the symptoms, and come to believe the prducts are well worth the price (about $12 for a month's supply assuming relatively high levels of useage).

As for people who use the words evil and conspiracy, I'm pretty much with you on the evil part, if not as much the conspiracy part.

A conspiracy in my opinion is a genuine possibility any time two imperfect people with some degree of power find it more agreeable to work together (to exclude others) than to work against each other. That this could occur should be no surprise to any member of a capitalist society, or efor that matter any imperfect society where demand is greater than supply and supply can be held in a few hands.

[ 12 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

I've come to the conclusion that what we generally know as "western medicine" is best at acute conditions but not particularly good at dealing with chronic conditions...like chronic pain.

What we generally think of as "alternative" medicine is much better at dealing with chronic conditions. I suppose alot of chronic conditions have a great deal to do with stress...and if you can lower someone's stress level you've helped to deal with their medical issues.

I do recall seeing an episode of "Scientific American Frontiers" on PBS back a few years ago where they took a look at a lot of alternative therapies. The "expert" on the show came to the conclusion that for example chiropractic therapy is pretty much hokum and based on some very unscientific 19th century theories.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Acupuncture, traditional chinese medicine and ayurvedic medicine have been around waaaaay longer (thousands of years more) than allopathic medicine.

---

I have chosen something better and healthier for myself. I have given myself options through education.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
I have chosen something better and healthier for myself. I have given myself options through education.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
No, what you have chosen is to put your faith in unscientific and downright fraudulent therapies.

---

So say you. You say they are unsafe and yet you don't even know exactly what I am using. Right away you judge and label me.
I have been telling you that I have done my research and I am satisfied with my products. My products have no side effects because they work gently and with time.

If it makes you feel better about yourself thinking that I am doing myself harm well go hog wild. I don't know how else to tell you that I am doing very well. Seeing how hard core drugs were affecting family members, I made the decision to stay away from them myself. Instead I have found safe alternatives and it works for me.
Hard core drugs are not for everyone. If they help you and work for you more power to you. They aren't for me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
My products have no side effects because they work gently and with time.

---

The homeopathic stuff is plain water.

And you will probably not believe me when I tell you that you have no Chi. There is no such thing. Nobody has ever been able to detect it with the most sensitive of modern instruments. The ancients could fool everyone because nobody had the technology to test their claims; now we do, and guess what - the emperor has no clothes! The entire basis of "Traditional Chinese Medicine" turns out to be a figment of someone's vivid imagination!

Why do you think placebos often "work"? I'll tell you: it's because people have an enormous capacity for convincing themselves that what they are "taking" really is having a beneficial effect, when in fact it may have no effect at all. They persuade themselves that the stuff they are taking "works", and they end up feeling better.

This has been demonstrated time and again in scientific tests (I know scientific testing doesn't impress you at all, but I say it anyway). And it is this tremendous capacity for self-delusion that fuels the so-called "alternative" medicine industry.

quote:

---

If it makes you feel better about yourself thinking that I am doing myself harm well go hog wild. I don't know how else to tell you that I am doing very well.

---

The harm you are doing is psychological and mental. You are setting yourself up for a situation where you may develop a serious disease and refuse to recognize that you need proper medical attention and treatment. You may consult a herbalist or a chiropractor or an acupuncturist or an aromatherapist, or some other quack, all practicing 14th century folk-healing techniques, instead of consulting someone who will apply 21st century science to the problem.

You may also go through life, typhoid-Mary-like, infecting others with your anti-scientific prejudices and mystical ideas, encouraging others to rely on folk medicine and placebos instead of getting the medical help they may need.

Medicine is far from perfect; but it is self-correcting. Medical progress is impossible without learning from mistakes; that's what has allowed medicine to evolve and improve. Medicine has made huge progress, century after century, and the rate of progress over the past century has been greater than ever before, thanks to the scientific method.

It was science, by the way, that identified Omega-3 fatty acids and demonstrated their nutritional value in controlled studies. It was also science that discovered the problems with Vioxx and led to its recall. No herbalists were involved in the process.

Meanwhile your Chinese herbalists and homeopaths have been stagnating for millennia, pushing the same old stone-age technology, and carefully avoiding scientific scrutiny that might show their theories to be false.

quote:

---

Freedom to choose is a wonderful thing.

---

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

I still do my blood tests and see a gp once a year but that's the extent of it for me. (There's no guarantee that the blood tests will detect a serious illness either.) I have been reading up on natural and preventitive ways to good health since I was a teenager. I have chosen a different route for myself and thank God. It feels amazing not being dependant on nasty drugs. This works for me. Everyone else needs to find what works for them.

Hey baby it works for me and this I suspect is what bothers you.

Dude you should seriously chill out and try some Lavender essential oil to calm you down, you don't want to get your blood pressure out of whack now do you? Those blood pressure pills are a real drag so I'm told by loved ones who take them. The side effects are horrendous. And pray, pray that your doctor tells you all the contraindications on it.

Great health is the best revenge.

[ 13 September 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

Example 1)
Essential oils usually used in aromatherapy have been found to kill the deadly MRSA bacteria according to research carried out at The University of Manchester.

quote:

---

'We are having problems finding this funding because essential oils cannot be patented as they are naturally occurring, so few drug companies are interested in our work as they do not see it as commercially viable. Obviously, we find this very frustrating as we believe our findings could help to stamp out MRSA and save lives,' added Peter, who is based at Hope Hospital.

---

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

Lots of things inhibit bacterial growth. Do they inhibit them more, or less, than current treatments? *That's* the interesting question.

Aromatherapy is one of the fastest-growing complementary therapies used by nurses in acute-care and long-term care settings in the United States (Buckle, 2001; Thomas, 2002).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well referenced book on aromatherapy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Recent studies bear out years of anecdotal evidence showing that lavender produces calming, soothing, and sedative effects.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Lavender oil and elderly patients/Essential Oils and sleep: 2 promising study.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some more references.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Some of my favourite essential oils are rose, geranium, frankinsense and myrrh.

[ 14 September 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
While many studies on aromatherapy essential oils have been done in Europe especially France, we in North America are only getting started....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector: Why do you think placebos often "work"? I'll tell you: it's because people have an enormous capacity for convincing themselves that what they are "taking" really is having a beneficial effect, when in fact it may have no effect at all. They persuade themselves that the stuff they are taking "works", and they end up feeling better.

---

More to the point, note that in the same breath, this process is described as "self-delusion," an utterly unscientific judgement. This is common, borrowing science to support personal prejudices. The pattern is irrational, and so of course it's always denied. The harm is potentially psychological and mental, since the person risks an imbalance that alienates them from their own nature, and that of the world around them. They go to extremes to avoid a healthy crisis in which heretofor unacknowledged irrational impulses are revealed as having held far more influence than rational ones. Flawed empiricism is directly related to the degree to which the influence of prejudice is denied. This pattern is not self-correcting, because this specific kind of ignorance is of course about oneself, and necessary to a feeling of well-being. It is a placebo in reverse, a bitter pill that is spread, "Typhoid Mary" style, for others to swallow.

quote:

---

The harm you are doing is psychological and mental. You are setting yourself up for a situation where you may develop a serious disease and refuse to recognize that you need proper medical attention and treatment. You may consult a herbalist or a chiropractor or an acupuncturist or an aromatherapist, or some other quack, all practicing 14th century folk-healing techniques, instead of consulting someone who will apply 21st century science to the problem.

---

Alot of modern medicine evolved out of "folk medicine". So take it easy there Spector.

Tea made from boiled willow bark was long used for minor pain relief.

quote:

---

The father of modern medicine was Hippocrates, who lived sometime between 460 B.C and 377 B.C. Hippocrates was left historical records of pain relief treatments, including the use of powder made from the bark and leaves of the willow tree to help heal headaches, pains and fevers.

By 1829, scientists discovered that it was the compound called salicin in willow plants which gave you the pain relief.

---

about.com article

All I'm saying is that today's "homeopathic" or "alternative" medicine can end up being tomorrow's "mainstream" medicine. Humanity does not yet know everything there is to know. Science is always evolving.

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
Alot of modern medicine evolved out of "folk medicine". So take it easy there Spector.

Tea made from boiled willow bark was long used for minor pain relief.

Today its called aspirin....or A.S.A. if you'd prefer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by radiorahim:
Humanity does not yet know everything there is to know. Science is always evolving.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Superstitious folk medicine remains stubbornly static...

---

quote:

---

Surveys have shown that 71% of Canadians regularly take vitamins and minerals, herbal products, homeopathic medicines and the like -- products that have come to be known as natural health products (NHPs).

---

Many, of course, have been found largely ineffective in scientific studies, such as echinacea and ginkgo biloba. Others have been found to be potentially dangerous, like St. John's wort. And other forms of folk therapy have also failed the test of modern science: homeopathy, Qi-gong, acupuncture, therapeutic touch, etc.

And yet, in the face of scientific evidence that many of these therapies are ineffective, or worse, their practitioners, and the powerful organizations that profit from these therapies, continue to tout them as effective to anyone gullible enough to listen. This is what I meant when I said "superstitious folk medicine remains stubbornly static." Instead of changing to meet new scientific knowledge and understanding (the way real medicine does) they continue on as they have for decades, centuries, possibly millennia, in denial of the scientific evidence. They don't conduct their own scientific studies, and dismiss the results obtained by anyone else who does.

Of course, any apparent positive or negative consequences of using unproven therapies, as reported by patients, would remain in the realm of anecdotal evidence. There are obvious issues of causation (is the improved condition the result of the unproven therapy, the "allopathic" therapy, or neither?) and there is no way of comparing what happens with what would have happened if the therapies had been different (no "control").

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
They don't conduct their own scientific studies, and dismiss the results obtained by anyone else who does. You may regard that as condescending, but it's just a healthy respect for evidence obtained from proper scientific trials. I won't apologize for that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I bow to your superior credentials.

---

quote:

---

In "The Alternative Fix," FRONTLINE® examines the controversy over complementary and alternative medicine. The one-hour documentary features interviews with staunch supporters, skeptical scientists, and other observers on both sides of the alternative medicine debate and questions whether hospitals that offer alternative therapies are inappropriately conveying a sense of legitimacy to these largely untested and scientifically unproven treatments.

FRONTLINE traces the mainstreaming of alternative medicine to the halls of Congress and one U.S. senator's allergies. Viewers meet Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who recalls complaining to a friend about his terrible allergies. The friend said he knew someone who could cure the senator's allergies using bee pollen.
"I went on this very tough regimen of taking a lot of bee pollen, sometimes as much as sixty pills a day," Harkin tells FRONTLINE. "And literally on about the tenth day, all of a sudden my allergies just left. Well, that's when I began to think, 'We've got to have somebody looking at these different approaches.'"

---

FRONTLINE's report continues on this web site, where you'll find resources for consumers interested in CAM , guides to understanding the controversial scientific evidence on alternative medicine, a report on the history of the tug-of-war between conventional and alternative medical practioners, and more.
You can watch the full program through a series of videos and read through more analysis and interviews on the subject.

Educate yourself for better health and quality of life.

[ 16 September 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

Who Gets to Validate Alternative Medicine?

quote:

---

As alternative practitioner Hyla Cass, an M.D., who practices integrative medicine, which she calls the best of both worlds says, "12 medical schools Duke, Columbia, Harvard among them have incorporated CAM (Complementary and Alternative Medicine) programs. I want to see more of that."

---

[ 16 September 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

I thought this was reasonable question given the title of this thread which is 'Is "Quackwatch" is (sic) reliable source of information.

What followed from that title was a broad personal attack on Stephen Barrett.

Now, either Quackwatch is reliable or it is not. If someone could point to some information there they believe is wrong, we could have discussion on that.

Given the intensity of the attack on Stephen Barrett, one would think the Quackwatch site was full of misrepresentation and falsehood.

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: mary123 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
I asked earlier if any of the information posted at Quackwatch was either wrong or misleading.

I thought this was reasonable question given the title of this thread which is 'Is "Quackwatch" is (sic) reliable source of information.

What followed from that title was a broad personal attack on Stephen Barrett.

Now, either Quackwatch is reliable or it is not. If someone could point to some information there they believe is wrong, we could have discussion on that.

---

See the links here: http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=11&t=001351 for the safety of the American medical system, the effects of PR on our perception, and links to studies proving the effectiveness and safety of vitamins. Then compare it to http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/spotquack.html
Look into flouride on these sites (or other independant ones) and tell me it is wise to drink it in any amount, let alone the amounts we do today.

Look at people like Linus Pauling (lived until 93 years old), Harvey Diamond (living healthy after exposure to Agent Orange while his fellow soldiers suffered and died), or Gary Null (alive and well while most of his relatives over the age of 40 have passed on due to disease).

Doctors recieve very little education about diet, and it is interesting to note that even the original "food pyramid" was heavily modified at the behest of monied interests, namely meat and dairy organizations. Allopathic education is driven by the reliance on drugs. The "watchdog" organizations in the US allow their members to take cushy high price jobs (like sitting on an advisory board) at drug companies after their service. Often CEO's of these companies are chosen for top positions at the watchdog organizations. These organizations are even funded by drug companies, who have a long history of bad behaviour.

Compare the quackwatch site to any good independant site on natural health and tell me it is a reliable source of information.

http://www.amasci.com/weird/wclose.html also seems interesting.

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

VITAMIN E: ANTI-VITAMIN FERVOR or ANTI-VITAMIN TERROR?

The news media can be absolutely relied on to trumpet any allegation that vitamins are harmful. Such is yet again the case, as now vitamin E has been accused of actually causing deaths. (Miller E. R., Pastor-Barriuso R., Dalal D., Riemersma R. A., Appel L. J. & Guallar E. Meta-Analysis: High-dosage vitamin E supplementation may increase all-cause mortality. Ann Intern Med, 4 January 2005. Volume 142, Issue 1)

So many understandably distressed readers have written to me about this that I thought I'd offer an immediate three-part analysis of the situation.

PART ONE:

Simply put, this and other vitamin-bashing articles are wrong. Their conclusions are pre-ordained; their approach is biased; their research design is faulty. In the present study, even the study authors admitted that "Most of the patients in the trials were over age 60 and were not well." (Billingsley J. Vitamin E linked to higher death rates. HealthDay Reporter, Weds Nov. 10, 2004.)

The reporter adds: "The study 'inappropriately tries to draw conclusions for the whole population based on a combination of studies of people who were already at grave risk with existing diseases, including cancer, heart disease, Alzheimer's, Parkinson's and kidney failure,'" according to the Council for Responsible Nutrition, a dietary-supplement industry association.

"John Hathcock, the Council's vice president for scientific and international affairs, added, 'In reviewing the totality of evidence on vitamin E, including all clinical trial data and several large observational studies, CRN agrees with the Institute of Medicine in finding vitamin E supplements safe at levels of at least up to 1,000 mg (1,600 IU) for normal, healthy adults. This meta-analysis provides no convincing evidence to the contrary.'"

In fact, writes Bill Sardi: "The study authors concluded that 'Overall, vitamin E supplementation did not affect all-cause mortality.' That is not what you heard in televised news reports or in the newspapers. What you heard was there is a 5 to 10 percent (5 to 10 in 100) increased risk of dying from taking high-dose vitamin E supplements. . . (I)n hard numbers the risk rose by 10 in 10,000 persons, or 1 in 1000 (about 1/10th of one percent). . . The authors of the study indicate, among the 19 studies they examined, 'Most of the trials examined targeted populations at high risk for a chronic disease, most often coronary heart disease.' This fact obviously skewed the results."

Indeed, Sardi adds: "A University of North Carolina study of 45,748 participants, aged 50 to 75 years, found that supplement use is higher among people who are battling chronic health conditions and the strongest association was for cardiovascular disease with supplemental vitamin E. [Am Journal Preventive Medicine 24:43-51, 2003]." (http://www.askbillsardi.com/sdm.asp?pg=news&specific=87)

To sum it up: Older people are much more likely to have multiple chronic illnesses. Many such people are likely to take higher doses of vitamin E, which while a lifesaver, is not the elixir of immortality. Sadly, older people die. People die in spite of vitamin E, not because of it.

SO WHY THE CONFUSION?

As I wrote in a previous DOCTOR YOURSELF Newsletter (http://www.doctoryourself.com/news/v4n22.txt):

"Beware the Meta-Analysis: A meta-analysis is not new research, but a review of existing research. It is not a clinical study, but rather a statistical look at a collection of studies. If you analyze failed studies, you will get a negative meta-analysis. Low-dose vitamin studies are the ones that get negative results. Most vitamin research is low-dose. So where's the surprise?"

Many if not most E-supplementers mistakenly or unknowingly take synthetic vitamin E (DL-tocopherol), which is therapeutically ineffective. The vitamin E meta-analysis made no attempt to differentiate between use of the natural form and the synthetic form vitamin E. This is a significant if not glaring omission. As cardiologists Wilfrid and Evan Shute discovered decades ago, the natural "D" (dextro-, or right-handed) form of the vitamin is needed for results. You cannot screw in a left-hand-thread light bulb and expect your lamp to work.

Megadosing with natural vitamin E has been shown to be safe and effective for well over 60 years.

...

The sky is not falling. Vitamins save lives. We are a nation of sick, under-nourished, and over-medicated people. Vitamins are not the problem; they are the solution.

PART THREE: You can read more about the safety and effectiveness of vitamin E at http://www.doctoryourself.com/evitamin.htm

[ 17 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

Mr. Anonymous has posted a reply, but there was nothing in the reply that exposed any false or misleading information, only the statement that

quote:

---

Look into flouride on these sites (or other independant ones) and tell me it is wise to drink it in any amount, let alone the amounts we do today.

---

And further:

quote:

---

Look at people like Linus Pauling (lived until 93 years old), Harvey Diamond (living healthy after exposure to Agent Orange while his fellow soldiers suffered and died), or Gary Null (alive and well while most of his relatives over the age of 40 have passed on due to disease).

---

Well, lets look at Linus Pauling, or at least listen to what he says about flouride:

quote:

---

The Fluoridation of Drinking Water
Linus Pauling, Ph.D.

29 November 1967

Over a period of more than a decade I have studied the available information about the fluoridation of drinking water I have reached the conclusion that the presence of fluoride ion in drinking water in concentrations about equal to the average for natural water is beneficial to the health, especially because of the protection that it provides against dental caries, and that there is no evidence for detrimental effects comparable in significance to the beneficial effects.

I support the actions of city, state, and national governments in ordering that public supplies of drinking water be brought to this level by the addition of fluoride, in case that the water is deficient in fluoride, and by removal of some of the fluoride if there is an excess of fluoride in the water supply.

---

So your own healthy expert supports the flouridation of water supplies.

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
I asked earlier if any of the information posted at Quackwatch was either wrong or misleading.

I thought this was reasonable question given the title of this thread which is 'Is "Quackwatch" is (sic) reliable source of information.

What followed from that title was a broad personal attack on Stephen Barrett.

Now, either Quackwatch is reliable or it is not. If someone could point to some information there they believe is wrong, we could have discussion on that.

Given the intensity of the attack on Stephen Barrett, one would think the Quackwatch site was full of misrepresentation and falsehood.

So let's hear it. What information on Quackwatch is false or misleading or wrong.

---

an updated response to your query:

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
I'm still waiting for someone to give some specific information on Quackwatch that is either false or misleading.

Mr. Anonymous has posted a reply, but there was nothing in the reply that exposed any false or misleading information, only the statement that
(lost data)

---

Mr. Barrett says that vitamins are useless, the evidence (as per the links) shows that they are useful, when prescribed at certain dosages, and when studies are otherwise well done (and interpreted, which is not always the case).

As for flouride, Dr Pauling was an expert on Vitamin C, which was shown effective in many areas even decades ago. For better work on flouride as it exists today (more information has come out since '67) see the more current authors listed above, or any number of websites. Here is an interesting website http://www.fluoridealert.org/ Here is an interesting article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/analysis/story/0,3604,984313,00.html

"
Analysis
Fluoride flaws

The government plans to encourage the fluoridation of water. But it is the subject of controversy among experts and more research is needed

Bob Woffinden
Wednesday June 25, 2003
The Guardian

The government is poised to reignite one of the most vexed medical issues of the past 50 years. Early next month, parliament will debate clauses of the water bill which will give indemnity against legal action to water companies that add fluoride to their supplies, paving the way for the extension of fluoridation schemes throughout this country.

Fluoridation is the addition of silicofluorides (hexafluorosilicic acid or, less commonly, sodium hexafluorosilicate) at the level of one part per million to public water supplies. The adversaries could not be more starkly opposed. Proponents believe that fluoridation brings about a reduction of caries in children's teeth, and that this is especially beneficial for children in socially deprived areas. They insist that there are no detrimental public health consequences, whether short- or long-term. Opponents argue that silicofluorides are a class 2 poison under the Poisons Act, have serious adverse health effects, and in any case do nothing to benefit children's teeth.

Article continues
Fluoridation schemes were first introduced in the United States in 1946. Since the late 1960s, about 10% of the UK population has received fluoridated water supplies - primarily, those in areas served by the Severn Trent, Northumbrian and Anglian water companies. During the postwar decades, the benefits of fluoride were held to be incontestable as dental health rapidly improved. However, with better diet and treatment, it was improving across the western world. As far back as 1986, Nature published an article showing that rates of tooth decay were coming down as quickly in unfluoridated communities as in fluoridated ones.

More recent studies published in 2000-01 of communities in Finland, Cuba, Canada and east Germany, which abandoned fluoridation, found that rates of dental decay did not rise (and, indeed, continued to decline) afterwards. The city of Basle in Switzerland recently stopped fluoridation, partly because there was no evidence that rates of tooth decay were lower there than in non-fluoridated Swiss cities...

Earlier this month, Sam Epstein, the chairman of the Cancer Prevention Coalition and professor emeritus of environmental and occupational medicine at the University of Illinois, pointed to the epidemiological studies linking fluoride and bone cancer, and said that "the imposition of fluoridation on the UK public [would] present a significant public health hazard".

Other studies have linked fluoride with higher incidences of miscarriages and Down's syndrome births, and decreased IQ levels.
...
Perhaps the main finding to emerge from the York review was the weakness of the research base: "Little high quality research has been undertaken in the area of fluoride and health." One would have expected the government to remedy this before legislating to put fluoride into the country's public water supplies."

So insofar as the flouride added is toxic (from industrial waste, last I heard), what good reason is there to take the risk of (potential) negative health effects that might arise from its usage in water?

[ 19 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

Let us return to the "science" debate, shall we? Before leaving this cyber-lobotomy, I must at least state a few more things. Firstly, what is modern science? (yes, this question is most certainly directed at you "scientific thinkers") Well, most of our working scientific principles are derived from the investments of corporations, and/or governments. There simply are no "basement scientists" any longer. They don't have the money to complete such elaborate projects. Most science today is funded research. And who funds this research? And what funding produces what results? Sometimes, we have university research (Harvard, MIT, Yale, etc.), sometimes governmental research (ie; the EPA, etc.), and sometimes even private research teams hired by a corporation (or a government lobbied by a corporation's interests) to produce the results they are looking for (contrary to "other" claims... which can easily be debunked through slander). Simply to confirm that they are correct. Try disseminating the information for once.... for example: What does Harvard have to gain from producing a negative report on the pharmaceutical industry? And what does the pharmaceutical industry have to gain from producing a report which subseuquently discredits the aforementioned report..... come on people. Use YOUR brains! (as opposed to them thinking for you). There are a number of examples... all you need to do is look and stop insulting everyone with an opinion that differs from yours. That having been said: in this information age, we are flooded with opinions from all sides. Some call certain scientific analysis (ie; studies in Sweden, Germany, universities, federal commissions, etc.) junk science. As if recognizing toxic emissions in the atmosphere, or mercury in our fish, were the equivalent to believing that the earth is flat. Strangely, on this planet, millions of women and cats died during the witch trials because their opinion (the aggressors against them... the "witches", of course, being heretics) was the only one right.... and countless Native Americans died due to "anglo" science. How about that smallpox in the blankets trick? Or exaggerating their savage customs due to their differences? Brutal. Dare I venture into that intolerable regime of 1930's Germany. How about their intolerance of the Other?! OOhh. Holocaust style stuff. ouch. But hey, they were ruining the German economy, right? And, of course, their "genetics" were inferior. Yes. That's right. The Nazis used "sound science" as a means to their ends, in many, many regards. Ensuring that they were "right". Regardless, there are a million and one ways of making sure that "you" are right. And violence and force are just some, to name a few. Unintelligent blathering is another. Just more impotent. Besides, the "scientific" community might be the first to tell you that what is true today, may not be true tomorrow. Unless, of course, you are listening to the ten commandments of Stephen Hawking as dictated by the king of dark matter to him on Mount Erebus! But, then again, HE EVEN CORRECTED HIMSELF about the issue of the expanding universe. Shall we never learn?......Yes, we are fallible. And "science", as we call our modern god, is merely an extension of us. Making science what?..... come on... you can say it with me..... FALLIBLE TOO.

Here is a suggestion for the 21st century for each and every individual...... Let us look at ourselves in the mirror, and study carefully, before we begin our systematic assault on the other with defective paradigms. 6.7 billion mirrors reflecting one another. Glistening in enlightenment. Wait, let me take that back. Poetry, aesthetics, romanticism and eastern philosophy died with the advent of the pragmatism of western science.... right?

http://amasci.com/weird/skepquot.html

The rest of the site at http://www.amasci.com/weird/wclose.html is also interesting, as noted before.

[ 20 September 2005: Message edited by: Mr. Anonymous ]

quote:

---

Mr. Barrett says that vitamins are useless

---

P.S. Still no takers for my guaranteed 100% effective anti-bacterial Heat Therapy?

[ 20 September 2005: Message edited by: aRoused ]

quote:

---

So insofar as the flouride added is toxic (from industrial waste, last I heard), what good reason is there to take the risk of (potential) negative health effects that might arise from its usage in water?

---

Which explains why I have a hard time taking anti-fluoridation types seriously.

Fluoride already exists in water supplies. It is a natural ingredient in many water supplies, and the impetus for fluoridating water came from the discovery that communities with natural levels of fluoride in the water, had children with better teeth than communities with less, or no, fluoride in the water.

The addition of fluoride to water systems was to bring the levels up to those which occurred naturally, and which showed the best results.

You know, iodine belongs to the same chemical group as fluorine (halogens). It is also a poison, with 3-4 grams sufficient to kill someone.

You ingest iodine almost every time you use table salt, because it is added as a preventive of goiter.

Iodine has been added to salt for 80 years or so, and has been shown to be extremely beneficial, not only as a goiter preventative, but a variety of other conditions caused by iodine deficiencies.

Modern science. A so-called discipline that is technically less than four hundred years old, and, one would think by M. Spector's glowy-eyed praise of it, completely "objective" - ie; not at all subject to ideological or market forces - how could it be? It's "scientific".

And where do you get the idea that practices like acupuncture, therapeutic touch, and qi gong "don't work"? Have you tried them yourself? Or was it a "scientific study" that declared it for you? Who are you to say what works and doesn't work for someone else? How do you "know" Tylenol works? Or your flu shot? Could it be your mind?

Here's a newsflash for you: The greatest advances in human health have come not through modern medicine, but through village sanitation, access to fresh water, and greater food choices. Not vaccines, not CAT scans, not dialysis machines. Modern medicine is driven by the profit motive and a pathological fear of death. Traditional and (most) alternative medicines are driven by a desire to heal. Even so-called witch-doctors have the ability to heal, within the context of their own culture. Who the h*ll are you to say what works and what doesn't?

quote:

---

Other studies have linked fluoride with higher incidences of miscarriages and Down's syndrome births, and decreased IQ levels.

---

[ 21 September 2005: Message edited by: jas ]

And I get really annoyed with people who presume that all modern medicine is soulless, heartless, out-for-money greed, because I don't see it, and I'm not that sort of person, and it feels like an uninformed slap in the face. It's as stupid as people who assume that all proponents of alternative medicine are lovey-dovey flakes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rabelais:
Faith or belief isn't good enough; to me, if something works without scientific explanation, it means that the explanation hasn't been found yet, but that it's there.

---

quote:

---

And I get really annoyed with people who presume that all modern medicine is soulless, heartless, out-for-money greed, because I don't see it, and I'm not that sort of person, and it feels like an uninformed slap in the face.

---

btw... those who can (like yourself), do. Those who can't (like me) debate it endlessly.

Edited to add postscript

[ 21 September 2005: Message edited by: ToadProphet ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rabelais:
I don't think it's fraudulent, but I do think it should be subjected to the same scientific method as everything else. If it works, I want to know why, and I want to know how. Faith or belief isn't good enough; to me, if something works without scientific explanation, it means that the explanation hasn't been found yet, but that it's there. If acupunture or chiropractic works for you, then great - but I want evidence as to why, so that if I'm asked, I can give a confident answer.

---

And I'm suggesting to you that modern western science is not currently equipped to provide you with those answers (if it ever can), so you'll have to do your own research.

quote:

---

And I get really annoyed with people who presume that all modern medicine is soulless, heartless, out-for-money greed, because I don't see it, and I'm not that sort of person, and it feels like an uninformed slap in the face. It's as stupid as people who assume that all proponents of alternative medicine are lovey-dovey flakes.

---

Modern (! I almost wrote 'monster' medicine) medicine does its best within its ideological confines. Most of the true nature of reality and consciousness and even natural history remains unexplained by modern western science. That is obviously a limitation of that particular method of inquiry.

quote:

---

And I'm suggesting to you that modern western science is not currently equipped to provide you with those answers (if it ever can), so you'll have to do your own research.

---

How is it not? What's wrong with the scientific method? Make an observation, formulate a hypothesis, test the hypothesis, accept or reject accordingly. Sanctas simplicitas. Just because we don't have the answers yet doesn't mean that science isn't equpiied to answer it. Maybe we haven;t looked properly. Maybe there hasn't been an adequate experiment designed to answer the question. Maybe we've just ignored it in favour of other, more lucrative questions, which is a problem, but an entirely different problem from the one you criticize.

quote:

---

Most of the true nature of reality and consciousness and even natural history remains unexplained by modern western science. That is obviously a limitation of that particular method of inquiry.

---

Or it could be that the right questions haven't been asked, or an adequate method od testing hasn't been developed. That's not to say it won't be. We don't entirely know how the mind works, but that's a far cry from saying that we won't ever know. Perhaps a few hundred years from now we'll know it inside out and backwards, or perhaps we'll be no farther along. Who knows? Not you, not me. I just recognize that we have a process.

quote:

---

I get annoyed by people who do not recognize the obvious limitations of the logical-empirical method of inquiry, and who furthermore hold it up to be the highest and only standard by which to judge all kinds of phenomena in this world and in this reality.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rabelais:

Well, what else have you got?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rabelais:
That's why they taught us to frisk the person's wallet yesterday before we bother defibrillating them yesterday in our advanced cardiac life support class, cause their lives are only worth saving if they have more than a hundred in cash or two major credit cards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
It probably should be pointed out that when people have the option of science based medicine, that's what they overwhelmingly chose.

Even in China, the home of acupuncture, Qi gong, and other 'traditional' medical practices, only roughly 20% of those seeking medical attention opt for TCM doctors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
It probably should be pointed out that when people have the option of science based medicine, that's what they overwhelmingly chose.

Even in China, the home of acupuncture, Qi gong, and other 'traditional' medical practices, only roughly 20% of those seeking medical attention opt for TCM doctors.

---

When your insurance premiums only cover those kinds of therapies, then often that is what you have to choose. There are doctors who practice alternative therapies but will bill under the insured system.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
M. Spector, I was astonished to read your unblinking, unquestioning glorification of "Science", and your apparent hatred for "primitive folk remedies". By "science" I guess you mean modern science? Because Aristotle thought he was a scientist. Every read his ideas on what constitutes nature and reality and the functioning of the human body?

---

I don't "hate" primitive folk remedies. I just think they are of limited, if any effect. I reserve my disdain for those who seek to make a buck off the superstitious, the gullible, and the ignorant, by selling primitive folk remedies that don't come anywhere close to matching what modern science can do.

Yes, Aristotle thought he was a scientist. In fact, he was. That doesn't mean he was infallible or knew everything about medicine and nature. In fact, he believed in the efficacy of primitive folk remedies!

As I pointed out above, science (unlike primitive folk medicine) progresses and evolves through inquiry, experimentation, observation, trial and error. If a theory doesn't work in light of new observations and data, it gets changed, or discarded altogether. This is how science progresses. This is how we were able to eradicate smallpox, build airplanes, and predict hurricanes. Primitive folk remedies, meanwhile, don't change. They don't improve. They remain primitive - untouched by scientific inquiry, testing, and analysis.

quote:

---

Modern science. A so-called discipline that is technically less than four hundred years old, and, one would think by M. Spector's glowy-eyed praise of it, completely "objective" - ie; not at all subject to ideological or market forces - how could it be? It's "scientific".

---

quote:

---

And where do you get the idea that practices like acupuncture, therapeutic touch, and qi gong "don't work"? Have you tried them yourself? Or was it a "scientific study" that declared it for you? Who are you to say what works and doesn't work for someone else? How do you "know" Tylenol works? Or your flu shot? Could it be your mind?

---

If I have a headache and I happen to drink a glass of orange juice and ten minutes later my headache goes away, am I correct to conclude that the orange juice cured my headache? If you give me 15 different scientific reasons why drinking orange juice doesn't cure headaches, am I acting rationally if I insist that "for me, it works"? The answer to both questions is no.

quote:

---

Here's a newsflash for you: The greatest advances in human health have come not through modern medicine, but through village sanitation, access to fresh water, and greater food choices.

---

Guess what? None of these discoveries was made by practitioners of TCM or primitive herbal medicine. All were made public health priorities by the work of scientists (yes, modern ones) doing real science in the service of medicine.

quote:

---

Not vaccines, not CAT scans, not dialysis machines.

---

And you have the nerve to counterpose your acupuncture needles, your echinacea, and your garlic necklaces to these scientific wonders?

quote:

---

Well, I guess the fact that you have to ask that question tells me you're the one who would best answer it. For yourself.

---

Or that total non-answer could mean that you don't, in fact, have anything else. At least give me some clue. What fills the void left by science's absence in your worldview?

quote:

---

I thought it was because the defribrillator messed up the magnetic strips on the credit cards.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
As I pointed out above, science (unlike primitive folk medicine) progresses and evolves through inquiry, experimentation, observation, trial and error. If a theory doesn't work in light of new observations and data, it gets changed, or discarded altogether. This is how science progresses. This is how we were able to eradicate smallpox, build airplanes, and predict hurricanes. Primitive folk remedies, meanwhile, don't change. They don't improve. They remain primitive - untouched by scientific inquiry, testing, and analysis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rabelais:
But I'm just curious; what would you say to a scientific study that tried to determine how exactly sweetgrass healed people?

---

quote:

---

None of those therapies you mentioned have been proven to work. In fact, their effectiveness has been disproved. By science.

---

If that were even true, what a coup for science! What else would it like to conveniently "disprove"?

quote:

---

Thanks for the news; now here's some for you. Principles of sanitation are based on the discovery and study of microbial pathogens. Ditto the idea that drinking foul water leads to disease. And variety in food is the result of the study of nutrition.

---

Sorry but we're talking about common sense trial and error through civilizations and societies here. These basic necessities of a healthy life are not the "discoveries" of modern western science.

quote:

---

And you have the nerve to counterpose your acupuncture needles, your echinacea, and your garlic necklaces to these scientific wonders?

Shame on you. You owe a huge apology to millions of people.

---

quote:

---

What fills the void left by science's absence in your worldview?

---

I dunno...TV? Relationships? Mommy? Daddy? Kraft Dinner?

sorry, but not quite gettin' your point here...??

quote:

---

Originally posted by chubbybear:
I think part of the problem is your tone comes across as dismissive, contempuous and condescending.

---

quote:

---

I am lucky that I have health care providers at the Anishnawbe Health centre who are not only Western Medical practitioners, but are thoughtful, open-minded people who also respect traditional Native methods of healing. Thus one can seek traditional healing and western healing side by side. Doctors will give you sweetgrass along with your prescription. Both are important.

---

But don't expect medical practitioners outside of aboriginal health centres or hospitals run by religious orders to cater to their patients' spiritual needs. There are other professions for that.

quote:

---

With the repeated almost talismanic use of the term "primitive" - perhaps unintentionally, you racialize the argument, thus inviting hostility.

---

quote:

---

quote: What fills the void left by science's absence in your worldview?

I dunno...TV? Relationships? Mommy? Daddy? Kraft Dinner?

sorry, but not quite gettin' your point here...??

---

Clearly not. I'll try again. What method for explaining an observation do you subscribe to, if not the scientific method? Why?

quote:

---

What fills the void left by God's absence?

---

Nowhere have I suggested that we throw the scientific method out the cosmic window. Much of the way we communicate here is based on logical empiricism.

I've already made the point I wanted to make: "those who do not recognize the obvious limitations of the logical-empirical method of inquiry, and who furthermore hold it up to be the highest and only standard by which to judge all kinds of phenomena in this world." I'm satisifed that that is a fair statement to make, and if you can't agree, I can't help that.

[ 22 September 2005: Message edited by: jas ]

From the World Health Organization:

quote:

---

Out of every 100,000 live births, 830 mothers die in Africa, 330 in Asia, 190 in Latin America and the Caribbean while only 20 die in the developed world, which is represented by an average of 400 deaths worldwide, according to 2000 United Nations data. Nigeria, Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Angola, Kenya, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, China, India and Pakistan account for two-thirds of 529,000 maternal deaths, the same data showed.

"In some developing regions, a woman has a one in 16 chance of dying in pregnancy and childbirth" compared to a one in 2,800 risk for women in a developed region," WHO said. Out of every eight girls born today, one of them will die in pregnancy," said Khama Rogo, World Bank's lead health sector specialist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
One of the areas of medicine which may shed some light on 'traditional' versus 'western' medicine is the number of women dying in childbirth.

From the World Health Organization:

Absence of 'western' medicine is killing hundreds of thousands of women every year.

---

[ 22 September 2005: Message edited by: ToadProphet ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
"those who do not recognize the obvious limitations of the logical-empirical method of inquiry, and who furthermore hold it up to be the highest and only standard by which to judge all kinds of phenomena in this world."

---

Then tell us what other methods of inquiry you prefer for finding out what makes the world tick.

[ 22 September 2005: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

The supposed limitations of logic and empirical inquiry are far from obvious. Perhaps you'd enlighten us by telling us what they are.

---

You mean besides being unable to measure the efficacy of alternative medicine? How about intuition? Faster than the speed of light, and still unexplainable by modern science.

quote:

---

150,000 to 300,000 Americans are injured or killed each year because of medical negligence (i.e., mistreated diseases, surgeries, drug reactions, misprescribed drugs.) - Wall Street Journal, Jan. 13, 1993

---

quote:

---

About 90% of the patients who visit doctors have conditions that will either improve on their own or that are out of reach of modern medicine's ability to solve. - New England J. of Medicine, Feb 7, 1991

---

quote:

---

In 1976 in Bogota, Colombia, doctors went on strike during a 52-day period. The death rate went down 35% during that time. In Los Angeles in 1976, doctors went on strike to protest increasing costs of malpractice insurance. The death rate decreased by 18%. When the strike ended, the death rate returned to prestrike proportions. In Israel in 1973, during a month-long strike, the death rate dropped 50%. The last time the death rate had been that low was when there was a doctors's strike 20 years before. - Confessions of a Medical Heretic, Robert S. Mendelsohn, M.D.

---

quote:

---

Current research suggests that 36% of physician visits are unnecessary; 36% of hospital admissions are caused by side-effects from other medical treatments; 53% of surgeries are unnecessary; and half of all time spent in hospitals isn't medically indicated. - Let's Live, Feb. 1995

---

[ 22 September 2005: Message edited by: jas ]

quote:

---

Iatrogenic diseases, generally defined as diseases that result from a physician's action or in response to a drug, are believed to be a major problem in terms of morbidity and hospital expense.- Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Dec. 12, 1980

---

quote:

---

Over a million patients are injured in hospitals each year, and approximately 180,000 die annually as a result of these injuries. Therefore, the iatrogenic injury rate dwarfs the annual automobile accident mortality of 45,000 and accounts for more deaths than all other accidents combined. - JAMA, July 5, 1995, 274:29-34

---

quote:

---

As a retired physician, I can honestly say that unless you are in a serious accident, your best chance of living to a ripe old age is to avoid doctors and hospitals and learn nutrition, herbal medicine and other forms of natural medicine. Almost all drugs are toxic and are designed only to treat symptoms and not to cure anyone. Most surgery is unnecessary. In short, our mainstream medical system is hopelessly inept and/or corrupt. The treatment of cancer and degenerative diseases is a national scandal! The sooner you learn this, the better off you will be. - Dr. Allan Greenberg

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
You mean besides being unable to measure the efficacy of alternative medicine?

---

quote:

---

How about intuition? Faster than the speed of light, and still unexplainable by modern science.

---

And again, you tell a lie when you say modern science can't explain intuition. Not only can intuition be explained in scientific terms, perceptions based on intuition can be tested by the use of logic and empirical observation.

For example, our intuition may lead us to reason that the rate an object falls to the ground depends on its mass. In fact this was the prevalent view until only 400 years ago. When observation and experiment became the basis of scientific inquiry, this misconception about the nature of falling objects' motions was revised, and it was proved to the world that the rate of falling has no relationship to an object's mass.

Counterintuitive, but true.

quote:

---

I guess the point is, not everything needs to be explained?

---

quote:

---

Not sure that anyone would debate on that, but a lot of these regions have an absence of any form of medicine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
But don't they have traditional medicine? One of the countries shown as having a high maternal mortality rate was China. I thought that was the home of traditional medicine.

---

Practitioners of TCM are fairly abundant in the city and are scant to non-existant in rural areas.
While I was there I stayed about 3 miles from Shanghai Market. The place next door, which you would never know was a clinic, had both western and TCM doctors. Every morning there would be a lineup of people from rural areas. In some cases they'd be bussed in but in the majority they found their own way. I'm told that post-SARS the city clinics will no longer take people from surrounding areas, but I'm not sure if that's the case.

quote:

---

For example, our intuition may lead us to reason that the rate an object falls to the ground depends on its mass....

---

I'm not sure you understand what intuition is, M. Spector. This is not an example of it.

Intuition is that feeling you get when you're driving/riding to work and something tells you to take another route - an 'illogical' route (ie; not the fastest most efficient route, if speed and efficiency are what you are trying for). Say you follow your hunch, and go the illogical way. You find out later that traffic was backed up for half an hour on your regular route.

Intuition is knowing something happened to a friend who is half way across the world, and finding out later that it was true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
Intuition is knowing something happened to a friend who is half way across the world, and finding out later that it was true.

---

quote:

---

Practitioners of TCM are fairly abundant in the city and are scant to non-existant in rural areas.

---

I don't want to drag this too far on, but seriously, I thought traditional medicine was basically folk medicine. Here we have a real world example of the efficacy of traditional medicine, and it has failed dramatically.

The major difference between the high and low maternal death countries is the availability of western medicine. Or is traditional medicine only available for the wealthy in the rest of the world?

By the way, the bulk of those maternal deaths are caused by hemorrhage, which would seem to be an old enough medical problem that practitioners of traditional medicine should have found a solution.

Apparently they haven't.

Someone else posted the statement that most illnesses cure themselves, and that is very true. We have an excellent immune system that protects us from all sorts of sickness, and even has the ability to upgrade itself and detect and act against brand new illnesses.

So for the most part, if you get sick, just do nothing and you'll probably get better. This is the underlying reason traditional medicine seems to have some effect. It does little, but most often little needs to be done.

As the poster also pointed out, there are some conditions and diseases that no medicine can do anything about, so it doesn't matter whether you use science-based or traditional medicine.

However, there are nearly half a million women dying every year in childbirth for lack of basic medical care. The only medicine available to them is traditional medicine, and it doesn't work in those cases.

It seems almost redundant to suggest that rather than argue the comparative merits of traditional and science-based medicine, we should probably be trying to bring the medicine that does work to those who need it.

Or to put it another way, one of the reasons we can argue this issue more or less dispassionately is we have the option of both (as well as a ready supply of healthy food and clean water).

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
I don't want to drag this too far on, but seriously, I thought traditional medicine was basically folk medicine.

---

By folk medicine I assume you are stating that it is practiced by individual within the community with no 'formal' training. That isn't the case at all with TCM. Mao standardized it as he considered it a 'national treasure'. It takes several years of school (not sure how long) to practice TCM. The issue in China is a lack of rural doctors of any kind. Most rural births are still unassisted.

quote:

---

Here we have a real world example of the efficacy of traditional medicine, and it has failed dramatically.

---

Not sure how you get that. The infant mortality rate shows a pretty strong correlation with poverty and births with health staff. Singapore and Hong Kong, which both use TCM widely (Singapore is to a lesser extent though), are 1 and 3 on the infant mortality rate respectively. They both have 100% births with health staff.

quote:

---

By the way, the bulk of those maternal deaths are caused by hemorrhage, which would seem to be an old enough medical problem that practitioners of traditional medicine should have found a solution.

---

I think you're missing the point . I'm not aware of any countries that don't consider western medicine as appropriate to stop hemorrhaging. Do you know of any countries where accupuncturists, TCM practicioners, homeopaths, etc, etc, etc are preferred over obstetricians for delivery? There may be some, but I'm not aware of them. 'Alternative' medicine is used preventatively in China where they have a three tier health care system. Obstetricians give birth.

quote:

---

As the poster also pointed out, there are some conditions and diseases that no medicine can do anything about, so it doesn't matter whether you use science-based or traditional medicine.

---

Yup, and I have personal experience with something that western medicine could only shrug and provide pain killers for but 'alternative' methods were successful. Subjective, yes, but does that really matter?

quote:

---

However, there are nearly half a million women dying every year in childbirth for lack of basic medical care. The only medicine available to them is traditional medicine, and it doesn't work in those cases.

---

Again, for the majority of countries it is a case of not having the proper medical staff available. Poverty. Correct me if I'm wrong, but all of those countries are looking for obstetricians.

quote:

---

It seems almost redundant to suggest that rather than argue the comparative merits of traditional and science-based medicine, we should probably be trying to bring the medicine that does work to those who need it.

Or to put it another way, one of the reasons we can argue this issue more or less dispassionately is we have the option of both (as well as a ready supply of healthy food and clean water).

Most people in the world don't.

---

You are 100% correct.

Re. flouride: Is the stuff in our water a natural and healthy form that our bodies can utilize well, or is it something else? http://www.earthisland.org/eijournal/fluoride/fluoride_phosphates.html suggests to me that it is the second.

I think the sugar/acidity of the pre-packaged drinks are probably a significant factor in those getting cavities, more than a lack of flouride (which most get in large levels in toothpaste)

Re. childbirth: I think this more an issue of clean conditions than it is of high-tech medicine. I have heard it claimed midwife-assisted births in North America are much healthier (emotionally and physically) for both the mother and child, with about a third the rate of complications of doctor directed births. (The babies had access to hospitals if things went bad, but the processes were not driven by doctors)

Re. the scientific method: I think that this is not limited to modern ideas of society. Lets imagine this scenario: 10 people get sick with a common ailment in an older culture. One tries a root or herb and improves while the others do not try the root or herb and do not get better as fast. Later on, others with a similar illness use this herb for this illness and get better quicker than those who had not previously tried the root or herb. It is scientific, but just on a lower (but much longer-scale) level.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
Intuition is that feeling you get when you're driving/riding to work and something tells you to take another route - an 'illogical' route (ie; not the fastest most efficient route, if speed and efficiency are what you are trying for). Say you follow your hunch, and go the illogical way. You find out later that traffic was backed up for half an hour on your regular route.

Intuition is knowing something happened to a friend who is half way across the world, and finding out later that it was true.

Intuition is knowing when to pick up the phone, and when to let the answering machine take the call.

---

Clairvoyance and other forms of ESP have been studied literally to death by scientists in controlled, clinical studies. ESP has never been proven to exist.

You have convinced yourself that you have such powers because you have forgotten all those many times when you decided to take an "illogical" route to work when it would have been faster to take the "normal" one; and all those times when you had the feeling someone was staring at you, but when you turned around nobody was; and all the times the thought of something horrible happening to a friend flashed through your mind, but in fact nothing did happen to them; and all the times when you telephoned a friend and they didn't say "Wow, I was just thinking of calling you!"

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Anonymous:
Re. the scientific method: I think that this is not limited to modern ideas of society. Lets imagine this scenario: 10 people get sick with a common ailment in an older culture. One tries a root or herb and improves while the others do not try the root or herb and do not get better as fast. Later on, others with a similar illness use this herb for this illness and get better quicker than those who had not previously tried the root or herb. It is scientific, but just on a lower (but much longer-scale) level.

---

Well, it may be a cure, or it may not. Maybe people hearing about Charlie's successful "cure" believed that eating the root would cure them as well (the placebo effect). Maybe Charie's hiccups were less severe than usual, and would have lasted only two minutes anyway. Maybe Charlie had something else for breakfast before the hiccups started, that's what made them go away so quickly.

You have to eliminate all other possible influences and causes. Modern scientists typically do this with double-blind clinical trials. You'd have two groups of people, selected at random. You would have them report to you after every time they got hiccups. They would tell you how long they lasted, and you would record the data.

After you have established baseline data for the duration of "untreated" hiccups, you would provide each person with a supply of "medicine" to take at the first sign of hiccups, and ask them to report to you the duration of the attack. One group would receive the medicine made out of the root in question, and the other group would receive a placebo. They would be instructed to take no other medications. No individual test subject would know which group they were in, they would have no contact with other test subjects, and they would not know whether they were taking the "real" medicine or the placebo. Importantly, you would also not know which people were taking the placebo and which were taking the real medicine, so you couldn't accidentally pass on subtle clues to the subjects, or unconsciously massage the data towards one result or another. (Someone else would arrange the distribution to the test subjects, and keep records of who gets what, but this information would be kept from you until after the study was completed). This is what's meant by "double-blind" studies.

Then you'd have some reliable data on which to base a scientific conclusion about the effectiveness of the root for curing hiccups.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What you're describing is not intuition. It's clairvoyance, an alleged form of extrasensory perception (ESP).

---

No, actually, it's intuition. Can you give it a rest, M. Spector? You're not an interesting person to argue with. Now you have to resort to redefining the English language to suit your incredibly narrow, constipated purposes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toad Prophet:
If one believes in the mechanical view of our being and, essentially, the universe then all the power to them. I, for one, remain unconvinced... and entirely unknowing.

---

I guess that's what makes you a likeable person - someone who can acknowledge certain limits of his own human consciousness.

The reason you don't find me an interesting person to argue with is that you have no interest in hearing the truth or engaging in logical argument. Unfortunately for you, I'm not here for your amusement in any case.

My argument was that intuition cannot/has not been explained by scientists (not that most people even give a sh*t, but you asked for an example).

You say:

quote:

---

whatever you call it, science has proved it doesn't exist.

---

Can you see the logical loop you've created? You are shutting out the existence of any phenomena that science can't or won't explain. You go even further by claiming that science has "disproved" it. Clarification: Science can't find an explanation. That's not the same as proving something's falsehood or non-existence. The latter is in fact unprovable in this case. Surely you of all people should know this, M Spector? So your argument amounts to nothing more than: "because science can't explain it, it doesn't exist". You are essentially proving my original point! Thank you!

quote:

---

Originally posted by jas:
Can you see the logical loop you've created? You are shutting out the existence of any phenomena that science can't or won't explain. You go even further by claiming that science has "disproved" it. Clarification: Science can't find an explanation. That's not the same as proving something's falsehood or non-existence. The latter is in fact unprovable in this case. Surely you of all people should know this, M Spector? So your argument amounts to nothing more than: "because science can't explain it, it doesn't exist". You are essentially proving my original point! Thank you.

---

Well...not quite. Logic is not much use when your premises are false. And your premise is false.

It's not that science can't find an explanation for clairvoyance. It's just that there's nothing to explain. The phenomenon doesn't even exist. Science has exhaustively tested and studied people who claim to be clairvoyant, and they turn out not to be.

Let me make this clear, because I know this logic thing is a new experience for you: Science doesn't say "we can't explain it, therefore it doesn't exist." Science says, "we have proved that nobody who has come forward so far with claims to be clairvoyant, and who has agreed to be tested, is in fact clairvoyant; therefore, until someone does come along who is really clairvoyant, we don't have to explain anything." If they could find one solitary individual who actually could do better than blind chance in controlled scientific studies, then they'd have a task to find an explanation for it.

Do you need to be told that not only is this poor science, it's an outright false statement? Furthermore, you're demanding that I explain, logically and scientifically, how things that "don't exist" (transl: things unexplained) in a logical/scientistic worldview, do exist. So in other words, you're demanding that I refute, logically, my point about the limits of logic. Is that a logical request?

I think this is what Gregory Bateson would have called a Double Bind - a confusion of logical types. Confusing the 'map' with the 'territory'.

That's why it's no fun, and indeed a waste of electronic 'breath' to argue with you, dear M Spector.

[ 24 September 2005: Message edited by: jas ]

What you described originally was normally called clairvoyance or esp, not intuition.

According to my handy Funk & Wagnall's, intuition is the understanding of something 'without concious attention or reasoning.'

That does not mean necessarily seeing into the future, or even 'seeing' into the present.

Intuition is the ability to absorb indicators without the conscious knowledge you are doing so.

All animals have intuition. The difference between humans and other animals in that respect is humans also have the conscious ability to sense things.

There's no mystery to intuition. Because we are able to focus our minds on certain things, that doesn't mean the mind ignores everything else. It just means that a portion of the mind remains actively sensing the world around, without our necessarily being aware of it.

Evolution would never allow the development of a conscious mind that could consistently overrule auto-defence mechanisms. That would consign us to the 'extinct' side of the evolutionary register.

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
jas, I'm afraid you've got it a bit wrong on intuition.

What you described originally was normally called clairvoyance or esp, not intuition.

According to my handy Funk & Wagnall's, intuition is the understanding of something 'without concious attention or reasoning.'

---

quote:

---

That does not mean necessarily seeing into the future, or even 'seeing' into the present.

---

You're right. It means those things the mine does outside of the 'aware intellect'. Some things have simple explanations, some do not.

quote:

---

Intuition is the ability to absorb indicators without the conscious knowledge you are doing so.

---

quote:

---

All animals have intuition. The difference between humans and other animals in that respect is humans also have the conscious ability to sense things.

There's no mystery to intuition. Because we are able to focus our minds on certain things, that doesn't mean the mind ignores everything else. It just means that a portion of the mind remains actively sensing the world around, without our necessarily being aware of it.

---

quote:

---

Evolution would never allow the development of a conscious mind that could consistently overrule auto-defence mechanisms. That would consign us to the 'extinct' side of the evolutionary register.

---

quote:

---

Intuition is our brain protecting us while we do other things, in the same way as we breathe without conscious thought.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by maestro:
According to my handy Funk & Wagnall's, intuition is the understanding of something 'without concious attention or reasoning.

---

Create a sequel if you wish.

[ 25 September 2005: Message edited by: Albireo ]