I had written another 3 pager in response of this, some parts were even funny, but when I tried to go back to edit after the preview I got an infiuriating message from MS Explorer. Should have written in Word but didn’t want to have to recheck all the apostrophes.
This will be much shorter.
This discussion will end for it is impossible for anyone to discuss evidence-based medicine when the basic notion of what is the concept of placebo and its implication in clinical research escapes the understanding of one of the main parties involved in the discussion.
I shall not forget the Fourth Basic Law of Human Stupidity a third time in two days.
This is not to be a coward and run away from a losing battle in front of an undefeatable enemy, but one has to cut their losses, in my case time prior to an exam and bend like the reed.
I won’t be the shepherd going after the lost sheep. That’s the job for another dude.
But good luck on that, last time I checked, he’s dead.
AlexH.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
Your arguments in defense of allopathic medicine fall short in light of how the system is designed and utilized. What you call “evidence” is merely a string of educated guesses, that do not explain anything scientifically.
Now I’m not going to go on and on about this like you have, because I can prove my point very quickly.
The current Allopathic process of determining if a new drug is effective involves giving one group of patients the active ingredient, one group a placebo, and if the study is done correctly a control group that doesn?t get either. None of the groups know what group they are in and whether the “pill” they are receiving is active or placebo. In a good study, even the researchers don’t know. That would be “double-blind” for those with the double digit IQ.
The determining factor in Allopathic medicine is based on the premise that if the active substance works better than the placebo it is determined to be effective (support the efficacy) of the substance for treating whatever they are focusing on.
Now, here is the point; Allopathic medicine neither understands nor has an effective measure of the placebo effect. They don?t know how it works, what systems are involved, and it’s mechanisms. AND YET, they still use it as a measure for the effectiveness of new substances. Using a process that is not fully understood as a measure is NOT SCIENTIFIC! So, my friend, Allopathic medicine is not scientific and no more valid than the use of actually holistic approaches.
Next, your assertion that Allopathic medicine is more scientifically valid is a biased statement based on a biased view of how data should be gathered. I’m sure most on this forum don’t know what we are talking about so I will explain further. Dandalex is basically saying that Western Medicine is “scientifically proven” because it is measured and proven valid in controlled laboratory experiments and other “Alternative” healthcare systems are not. So because alternative approaches don’t typically use this same form of scientific inquiry they are not valid. So basically he is saying that the only valid measures of testing and measuring outcomes is in a controlled environment. However, the fact that Allopathic medicine has a poor track record of resolving chronic health issues is evidence that this method of inquiry is not supported by positive outcomes. At least not for chronic conditions. .
In contrast, holistic health care systems are tested and found valid using mostly empirical data, which at times is more valid than controlled clinical data as the patient does not live in the laboratory, and as such, it does not take the patient?s actual living environment into account when determining the efficacy of a treatment. So the Allopathic system is in fact short sighted and their approaches do prove that Allopathic medicine does treat the disease condition and not the individual. So the actual practice of Allopathic medicine is contrary to your assertions.
[/quote]