Politics and Medicine - Alternative Medicine is Mainstream

Author

Alternative Medicine is Mainstream

johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com

2005-12-26, 10:57 am

I have located a printed directory of alternative medicine for the
Central Virginia area.

"The Directory of Complementary Healthcare Professionals (DOC), Second
Edition is scheduled for publication in the Summer 2004."
http://www.brandylanepublishers.com/doc04a.htm

"DOC is distributed free to healthcare providers, including hospitals,
clinics, physicians, dentists and participating practitioners. Also
available through booksellers, grocers, pharmacies, natural and
holistic shops, and other locations. Anticipated readership: 100,000 -
150,000."

Currently over seventy (70) categories of alternative medicine are
included.

It is one of the best kept secretes in Richmond, VA. But if you try
looking for one at a natural health grocery store, you should be able
to find one in the book department.

The directory documents that alternative medicine is mainstream.
Whether or not this stuff works in the opinion of the Quackpots is
entirely besides the point.

So why don't we get real for a change? Conventional businesses are
marketing to people interested in alternative medicine in a big way.
It is no different from business selling out America by catering to
Spanish speaking illegal aliens. These people have cold hard cash to
spend and businesses are more than willing to go after this market.

Wikipedia can argue to they are blue in the face that physical therapy
is NOT a form of alternative medicine. The reality is that more than a
few physical therapists are going after the alternative medicine
market. Here is one example, that I am familiar with.

"May Physical Therapy is located within health clubs, thus removing the
'patient' syndrome and supporting a healthy and fit therapy outlook and
recovery. We offer innovative physical and aquatic therapy (including
watsu), and myofacial release."

May Physical Therapy is located in my AFFC gym, for example. They
offer massages for $40/HR. In one recent, gym advertisement they were
soliciting people with running and other exercise related injuries.
So, you idiots can make it a law that physical therapy is a part of
conventional medicine, but the reality is that more than a few see
themselves catering to the alternative health market.

The same goes for psychologists. You in academia can claim all that
you want that psychology has nothing to do with alternative medicine,
but in the real world people are paying these people in the range of
$70+ an hour for their alternative health services. Probably more
psychologists are advertising than any other group of people in this
directory.

At least one MD is offering Homeopathic services. Of course, may other
physicians and medical centers are catering to the mind-body market,
and the like.

Then we can see a few surprises. Even though the Commonwealth of
Virginia does NOT sanction naturopathy there are more than a few
naturopaths practicing in this region of the country. At least one of
them is located in Richmond, VA with only a ND after their name. I
thought that naturopathy was illegal here, but that does not seem to
keep them out of Virginia.

The same goes for reflexology. Is this stuff legal in Virginia? I
doubt it, but that ain't stopping a number of different individuals
from advertising their alternative health services to the public.

Just thought that you might want to know.
--
john gohde
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/

outsor@citynet.net

2005-12-26, 12:55 pm

"The directory documents that alternative medicine is mainstream. Whether
or not this stuff works in the opinion of the Quackpots is entirely
besides the point."

"Alternative medicine" has always been mainstream, in the commercial
sense. What "works" is measured by demonstrated science, not yearly sales
levels and how common marketing makes it known. Alternative medicen must
be demonstrated the same way any medice is if it is to be science, and far
too little has been so demonstrated with the bulk still in the "pig in a
poke" and hocus pocus levels.

Peter Moran

2005-12-26, 6:02 pm

<johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in message
news:1135613040.303335.149800@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>I have located a printed directory of alternative medicine for the
> Central Virginia area.
>
> "The Directory of Complementary Healthcare Professionals (DOC), Second
> Edition is scheduled for publication in the Summer 2004."
> http://www.brandylanepublishers.com/doc04a.htm
>
> "DOC is distributed free to healthcare providers, including hospitals,
> clinics, physicians, dentists and participating practitioners. Also
> available through booksellers, grocers, pharmacies, natural and
> holistic shops, and other locations. Anticipated readership: 100,000 -
> 150,000."
>
> Currently over seventy (70) categories of alternative medicine are
> included.
>
> It is one of the best kept secretes in Richmond, VA. But if you try
> looking for one at a natural health grocery store, you should be able
> to find one in the book department.
>
> The directory documents that alternative medicine is mainstream.
> Whether or not this stuff works in the opinion of the Quackpots is
> entirely besides the point.

Beside what point? Healthy economists knew decades ago that the public
demand for medical attentions is potentially inexhaustible. If people know
about it , they will use it. Medical attention satisfies many human needs
other than the strictly medical. Also many common medical complaints don't
need efficacious treatments for patients to be very satisfied with their
care. One study showed that patients expressed greater satisfaction with
hands-on regular chiropractic attentions when compared to usual medical
treatment, even though they did not get out of bed, or back to work quicker.

Then there is practitioner-shopping and placebo reactions, as in this
patient of mine --
Female aged 40--

Long history persisting severe abdominal symptoms mainly pain and diarrhoea,
previously investigated by another surgeon and a gastroenterologist, and
advised she had an irritable bowel syndrome.

Referred by GP Dec 1997 -has anything been overlooked?. Arranged to do some
further investigations after Christmas period.

Rang in January to say won't be back. Has seen local chiropractor, who
massaged abdomen to relieve "stuck ileocaecal valve". No symptoms at all for
3 weeks!

Seen 19/1/98 Symptoms recurred- wanting to go ahead with tests.

Investigations negative but symptoms continued. Said that she could not eat
fresh bread without symptoms, but could eat toast-could she have candida?. I
suspected she was seeing a naturopath, and this was confirmed when seen
19/2/98 when she told me she was now quite well again. She had discovered
she indeed had Candida, and found she had no problems so long as she avoided
corn, lactose, and yeast containing foods, No pain now and diarrhoea
settled.

Sent back to here GP, but out of curiosity I rang her 13/8/98 Still
symptoms, but has bow seen an iridologist, who told her she has "digestive
problems". Taking "Nature's Own digestive enzymes" which is helping. Can
drink goat's milk but not cow's milk. Delighted to finally have a
"diagnosis".

One of the reasons I am sure this lady has some kind of psychosomatic
problem and/or attention seeking behaviour is that on two occasions I have
done internal examinations immediately after supposed severe diarhoea and
found normal faeces in the rectum.

Note that all these therapists are likely to be delighted with their
"success" with this lady.

Peter Moran

www.cancerwatcher.com

montygram

2005-12-27, 1:03 am

First, I'd like to see a clear, concise definition of "alternative
medicine" that everyone can agree upon, which is unlikely. There are
tried and true medical interventions that have science supporting them,
but today, everything seems to be based on "markers" and
"associations," such as the push to lower cholesterol, even though only
oxidized cholesterol is a problem, and is easy to avoid if you know the
basics. "Mainstream medicine" is largely a failure because it is based
on such flawed assumptions (as well as the "germ theory," which, when
applied in the usual, crude form, does more harm than good).

There also needs to be an underlying theoretical framework, which does
exist now (what one might call the "oxidizing agents hypothesis of
chronic disease"), but is just not understood by the lackies who are in
charge of the major medical institutions today.

Peter Moran

2005-12-27, 10:58 am

"montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:1135647893.951142.133580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> First, I'd like to see a clear, concise definition of "alternative
> medicine" that everyone can agree upon, which is unlikely.

There is no problem so long as you realise that it is about specific claims,
and the quality of evidence sustaining them. . Being "alternative" is not a
property of a specific modality.

An example would be the herbal product Artemesinin, which is a useful
anti-malarial (side effects a problem, though). It is also used in the
"alternative" treatment of cancer despite the absence of evidence that it
will cure human cancer.

Peter Moran

Robert

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

JanD

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

"Robert" <writer77@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:IPednbujorQVpCneRVn-rw@comcast.com...
>
> "montygram" <nazztrader@lycos.com> wrote in message
> news:1135647893.951142.133580@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Another word for "alternative" is untested.
>
> Robert

Please do tell us just exactly how much of conventional medicine has been
proven?

Mark Probert

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

JanD wrote:
> "Robert" <writer77@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:IPednbujorQVpCneRVn-rw@comcast.com...
>
>
>
> Please do tell us just exactly how much of conventional medicine has been
> proven?

All. Whether it be by rigorous testing, or experience of professionals,
all.

Remember, AltMed goes from curious finding to sales without testing.

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:06:52 -0500 in article <jlXsf.9363$L75.2871@fe12.lga>
Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>JanD wrote:
>
>All. Whether it be by rigorous testing, or experience of professionals,
>all.
>
According to the article

Sharon Kingman.
Quality Control for Medicine.
The New Scientist, 17 September 1994.

only 20% of medical procedures had been rigorously tested at that time. Now
the percentage is surely much higher, but hardly 100%. "Experience of
professionals" does not count, because 1) alternative medicine practitioners
can make exactly the same argument, and 2) even for experienced
professionals it may be impossible to notice a difference between a real
effect and a placebo effect, which is why randomized controlled clinical
trials are needed.

--
Matti Narkia

Mark Probert

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Matti Narkia wrote:
> Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:06:52 -0500 in article <jlXsf.9363$L75.2871@fe12.lga>
> Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> According to the article
>
> Sharon Kingman.
> Quality Control for Medicine.
> The New Scientist, 17 September 1994.
>
> only 20% of medical procedures had been rigorously tested at that time. Now
> the percentage is surely much higher, but hardly 100%. "Experience of
> professionals" does not count, because 1) alternative medicine practitioners
> can make exactly the same argument, and 2) even for experienced
> professionals it may be impossible to notice a difference between a real
> effect and a placebo effect, which is why randomized controlled clinical
> trials are needed.

Experience of the professionals, IMNSHO, does count. The experience of
well trained and educated physicians in using the medical procedures (a
term which is not defined in the blurb you posted) on different patients
in multiple settings is proof of effectiveness.

To equate a medicall trained professional with a herb doctor,
chiropractor, naturopath, etc. is utterly absurd.

Mark Probert

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Matti Narkia wrote:
> Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:06:52 -0500 in article <jlXsf.9363$L75.2871@fe12.lga>
> Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> According to the article
>
> Sharon Kingman.
> Quality Control for Medicine.
> The New Scientist, 17 September 1994.
>
> only 20% of medical procedures had been rigorously tested at that time. Now
> the percentage is surely much higher, but hardly 100%. "Experience of
> professionals" does not count, because 1) alternative medicine practitioners
> can make exactly the same argument, and 2) even for experienced
> professionals it may be impossible to notice a difference between a real
> effect and a placebo effect, which is why randomized controlled clinical
> trials are needed.
>

Oh, an dnot all "medical procedures" can be subjected to randomized
controlled clinical trials.

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:35:23 +0200 in article
<m4h8r1ptu1s2ah5nerknoor27bbtjvnt7l@4ax.com> Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:06:52 -0500 in article <jlXsf.9363$L75.2871@fe12.lga>
>Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>According to the article
>
>Sharon Kingman.
>Quality Control for Medicine.
>The New Scientist, 17 September 1994.
>
>only 20% of medical procedures had been rigorously tested at that time. Now
>the percentage is surely much higher, but hardly 100%. "Experience of
>professionals" does not count, because 1) alternative medicine practitioners
>can make exactly the same argument, and 2) even for experienced
>professionals it may be impossible to notice a difference between a real
>effect and a placebo effect, which is why randomized controlled clinical
>trials are needed.

Moreover, medical truths are usually not eternal. There is this interesting
article, which for example found out that the half-life of medical truth was
45 years:

Poynard T, Munteanu M, Ratziu V, Benhamou Y, Di Martino V, Taieb J, Opolon
P.
Truth survival in clinical research: an evidence-based requiem?
Ann Intern Med. 2002 Jun 18;136(12):888-95.
PMID: 12069563 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...3&dopt=Abstract>
<http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/136/12/888>
<http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/136/12/888.pdf> (full text)

Abtract:

"PURPOSE: Factors associated with the survival of truth
of clinical conclusions in the medical literature are
unknown. The authors hypothesized that conclusions
derived from studies using better methodology should have
a longer half-life. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and hand
searches of journals with studies on cirrhosis and
hepatitis. STUDY SELECTION: Original articles and meta-
analyses published from 1945 to 1999 about cirrhosis or
hepatitis in adults. DATA SYNTHESIS: In 2000, 285 of 474
conclusions (60%) were still considered to be true, 91
(19%) were considered to be obsolete, and 98 (21%) were
considered to be false. The half-life of truth was 45
years. The 20-year survival of conclusions derived from
meta-analysis was lower (57% +/- 10%) than that from
nonrandomized studies (87% +/- 2%) (P < 0.001) or
randomized trials (85% +/- 3%) (P < 0.001). The survival
of conclusions was not different when studies of high
methodologic quality were compared with those of low
quality. In randomized trials, the 50-year survival rate
was higher for 52 negative conclusions (68% +/- 13%) than
for 118 positive conclusions (14% +/- 4%) (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the authors' hypothesis,
conclusions based on recognized, good methodology had no
clear survival advantage. To better convince clinicians
of the long-term utility of evidence-based medicine,
better prognostic factors should be developed."

--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:41:20 -0500 in article <DRXsf.851$l06.47@fe11.lga> Mark
Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>Experience of the professionals, IMNSHO, does count. The experience of
>well trained and educated physicians in using the medical procedures (a
>term which is not defined in the blurb you posted) on different patients
>in multiple settings is proof of effectiveness.
>
I beg to disagree. If your claim were true, we could save huge amounts of
money by skipping all rigorous testing.

--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:41:55 -0500 in article <bSXsf.852$l06.718@fe11.lga> Mark
Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>Oh, an dnot all "medical procedures" can be subjected to randomized
>controlled clinical trials.

Name one, which cannot.

--
Matti Narkia

JanD

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:jlXsf.9363$L75.2871@fe12.lga...
> JanD wrote:
>
> All. Whether it be by rigorous testing, or experience of professionals,
> all.

DO SHOW US PROOF!

Now don't forget!
>
> Remember, AltMed goes from curious finding to sales without testing.

Remember I said you LIE everyday.

There are TWO LIES!

You simply can NOT post without LYING.

http://tinyurl.com/8qeg3

[Advances of clinical studies of acupuncture and moxibustion for treatment
of rheumatoid arthritis]

[Article in Chinese]

Suzuki S, Tian W, Li XW.

College of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Beijing university of TCM, Beijing
100029, China. md_satoshi@hotmail.com

OBJECTIVE: To summarize recent development of studies on acupuncture and
moxibustion for prevention and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, so as to
provide a basis and thinking for clinical scientific studies. METHODS: More
than 60 papers about clinical and experimental studies were reviewed,
choosing clinically commonly-used acupoints and introducing mainly different
therapeutic methods. RESULTS: Acupuncture and moxibustion can prevent and
cure rheumatoid arthritis with outstanding results. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture
and moxibustion have vast vistas for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

PMID: 16312903 [PubMed - in process] [Advances of clinical studies of
acupuncture and moxibustion for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis]

[Article in Chinese]

Suzuki S, Tian W, Li XW.

College of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Beijing university of TCM, Beijing
100029, China. md_satoshi@hotmail.com

OBJECTIVE: To summarize recent development of studies on acupuncture and
moxibustion for prevention and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, so as to
provide a basis and thinking for clinical scientific studies. METHODS: More
than 60 papers about clinical and experimental studies were reviewed,
choosing clinically commonly-used acupoints and introducing mainly different
therapeutic methods. RESULTS: Acupuncture and moxibustion can prevent and
cure rheumatoid arthritis with outstanding results. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture
and moxibustion have vast vistas for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.

PMID: 16312903 [PubMed - in process]

http://www.sram.org/

Mark Probert

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Matti Narkia wrote:
> Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:41:20 -0500 in article <DRXsf.851$l06.47@fe11.lga> Mark
> Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I beg to disagree. If your claim were true, we could save huge amounts of
> money by skipping all rigorous testing.

The claim is that only 20% of medical procedures have been rigorously
tested. What percentage of what are now well accepted medical procedures
pre-date the introduction of rigorous testing? What percentage of
medical procedures are suitable for rigorous testing? What is the basis
of the claim?

Mark Probert

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Matti Narkia wrote:
> Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:41:55 -0500 in article <bSXsf.852$l06.718@fe11.lga> Mark
> Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Name one, which cannot.

Surgery. If you can come up with a surgical placebo, you will be rich.

Mark Probert

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Matti Narkia wrote:
> Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:35:23 +0200 in article
> <m4h8r1ptu1s2ah5nerknoor27bbtjvnt7l@4ax.com> Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Moreover, medical truths are usually not eternal. There is this interesting
> article, which for example found out that the half-life of medical truth was
> 45 years:
>
> Poynard T, Munteanu M, Ratziu V, Benhamou Y, Di Martino V, Taieb J, Opolon
> P.
> Truth survival in clinical research: an evidence-based requiem?
> Ann Intern Med. 2002 Jun 18;136(12):888-95.
> PMID: 12069563 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...3&dopt=Abstract>
> <http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/136/12/888>
> <http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/136/12/888.pdf> (full text)
>
> Abtract:
>
> "PURPOSE: Factors associated with the survival of truth
> of clinical conclusions in the medical literature are
> unknown. The authors hypothesized that conclusions
> derived from studies using better methodology should have
> a longer half-life. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and hand
> searches of journals with studies on cirrhosis and
> hepatitis. STUDY SELECTION: Original articles and meta-
> analyses published from 1945 to 1999 about cirrhosis or
> hepatitis in adults. DATA SYNTHESIS: In 2000, 285 of 474
> conclusions (60%) were still considered to be true, 91
> (19%) were considered to be obsolete, and 98 (21%) were
> considered to be false. The half-life of truth was 45
> years. The 20-year survival of conclusions derived from
> meta-analysis was lower (57% +/- 10%) than that from
> nonrandomized studies (87% +/- 2%) (P < 0.001) or
> randomized trials (85% +/- 3%) (P < 0.001). The survival
> of conclusions was not different when studies of high
> methodologic quality were compared with those of low
> quality. In randomized trials, the 50-year survival rate
> was higher for 52 negative conclusions (68% +/- 13%) than
> for 118 positive conclusions (14% +/- 4%) (P < 0.001).
> CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the authors' hypothesis,
> conclusions based on recognized, good methodology had no
> clear survival advantage. To better convince clinicians
> of the long-term utility of evidence-based medicine,
> better prognostic factors should be developed."

No question. Unlike many altmedical philosophies, which are immutable.

Mark Probert

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

JanD wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:jlXsf.9363$L75.2871@fe12.lga...
>
>
>
> DO SHOW US PROOF!
>
> Now don't forget!
>
>
>
> Remember I said you LIE everyday.
>
> There are TWO LIES!
>
> You simply can NOT post without LYING.

And, toots, you cannot post without abusing, stalking and harassing me.
I was just surprised there was not religious slur, as you often do.

>
> http://tinyurl.com/8qeg3
>
> [Advances of clinical studies of acupuncture and moxibustion for treatment
> of rheumatoid arthritis]
>
> [Article in Chinese]
>
> Suzuki S, Tian W, Li XW.
>
> college of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Beijing university of TCM, Beijing
> 100029, China. md_satoshi@hotmail.com

TCM = Traditional chinese medicine. Alt Med.

>
> OBJECTIVE: To summarize recent development of studies on acupuncture and
> moxibustion for prevention and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, so as to
> provide a basis and thinking for clinical scientific studies. METHODS: More
> than 60 papers about clinical and experimental studies were reviewed,
> choosing clinically commonly-used acupoints and introducing mainly different
> therapeutic methods. RESULTS: Acupuncture and moxibustion can prevent and
> cure rheumatoid arthritis with outstanding results. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture
> and moxibustion have vast vistas for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
>
> PMID: 16312903 [PubMed - in process] [Advances of clinical studies of
> acupuncture and moxibustion for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis]
>
> [Article in Chinese]
>
> Suzuki S, Tian W, Li XW.
>
> college of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Beijing university of TCM, Beijing
> 100029, China. md_satoshi@hotmail.com
>
> OBJECTIVE: To summarize recent development of studies on acupuncture and
> moxibustion for prevention and treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, so as to
> provide a basis and thinking for clinical scientific studies. METHODS: More
> than 60 papers about clinical and experimental studies were reviewed,
> choosing clinically commonly-used acupoints and introducing mainly different
> therapeutic methods. RESULTS: Acupuncture and moxibustion can prevent and
> cure rheumatoid arthritis with outstanding results. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture
> and moxibustion have vast vistas for treatment of rheumatoid arthritis.
>
> PMID: 16312903 [PubMed - in process]
>
> http://www.sram.org/
>
>
>
>

Bill Braun

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Mark Probert wrote:

> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>
>
>
> The claim is that only 20% of medical procedures have been rigorously
> tested. What percentage of what are now well accepted medical procedures
> pre-date the introduction of rigorous testing? What percentage of
> medical procedures are suitable for rigorous testing? What is the basis
> of the claim?
>
>
That claim is fairly accurate and growing at a rate far greater than in
the past. Generally known as evidence based medicine (EBM), more and
more studies are contributing to what physicians "know for sure". Look
for articles by Mark Chassin about quality in medicine.

Bill B.

Mark Probert

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Bill Braun wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> That claim is fairly accurate and growing at a rate far greater than in
> the past. Generally known as evidence based medicine (EBM), more and
> more studies are contributing to what physicians "know for sure". Look
> for articles by Mark Chassin about quality in medicine.
>
> Bill B.

I have no question that the 20% is accurate. I question the conclusions
drwn by people. Most often, the 20% claim is used to infer that all the
rest of medicine is equal to that of untested and unproven alternative
medicine "treatments". That is not the case, as the 80% that is not
proven by RCTs etc. is proven on the battlefield by educated and trained
professionals who are able to discern what works and what does not. In
Altmed, that is not the case. The two do not equate.

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:39:28 -0500 in article <kIYsf.9389$L75.8891@fe12.lga>
Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>Surgery. If you can come up with a surgical placebo, you will be rich.

Absolutely false. First, we were discussing only randomized controlled
clinical trials, not double-blind trials. Don't get confused with the terms.
Any other treatment or even no treatment would serve as the control group's
treatment, be it placebo or another, already tested procedure. Surgical
treatments have been tested and should be tested in randomized controlled
clinical trials. It's very hard to think of any procedure, which could not
be tested in randomized controlled clinical trials, right now I cannot
imagine any such procedure.

Secondly, some surgical procedures have been tested even in double-blind
trials. The control group would have a sham surgery, with similar incision
as real surgery, or another already rigorously tested surgery with similar
incision. But because even sham surgery always carries a small risk, perhaps
sham surgery is not practical (although possible) in testing major surgical
operations. But for small operations at least it may be sometimes feasible
to do double-blind trial with sham surgery instead of mere randomized
controlled trial.

--
Matti Narkia

GMCarter

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:06:52 -0500, Mark Probert
<markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>
>All. Whether it be by rigorous testing, or experience of professionals,
>all.

Using that loose a definition of "Testing" you could claim everything
has been tested. How utterly absurd.

Indeed, There are data from BMJ (I must find the cite--vol 303?) that
only about 15% of pharmaceutical drugs are "evidence-based" tested. A
stricter definition, for sure.

>Remember, AltMed goes from curious finding to sales without testing.

That is a complete lie. Are there cases of products that get to market
without testing that don't have even the benefit of empirical
observations of a traditional form of medicine? You bet.

However, there are ample and increasing data for a variety of agents
that show efficacy for various indications. Are there adequate data?
Of course not. It is an ongoing process.

But these kinds of claims merely make you look like a reactionary
idiot.

George M. Carter

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:18:24 +0200 in article
<5sm8r1163uil9d6mchm92ptf7bf0f81vt8@4ax.com> Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:39:28 -0500 in article <kIYsf.9389$L75.8891@fe12.lga>
>Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>Absolutely false. First, we were discussing only randomized controlled
>clinical trials, not double-blind trials. Don't get confused with the terms.
>Any other treatment or even no treatment would serve as the control group's
>treatment, be it placebo or another, already tested procedure. Surgical
>treatments have been tested and should be tested in randomized controlled
>clinical trials. It's very hard to think of any procedure, which could not
>be tested in randomized controlled clinical trials, right now I cannot
>imagine any such procedure.
>
>Secondly, some surgical procedures have been tested even in double-blind
>trials. The control group would have a sham surgery, with similar incision
>as real surgery, or another already rigorously tested surgery with similar
>incision. But because even sham surgery always carries a small risk, perhaps
>sham surgery is not practical (although possible) in testing major surgical
>operations. But for small operations at least it may be sometimes feasible
>to do double-blind trial with sham surgery instead of mere randomized
>controlled trial.

And you don't have to take my word about sham surgery, Medline is my proof.
Here a couple of recent articles from there:

Polgar S, Ng J.
Ethics, methodology and the use of placebo controls in surgical trials.
Brain Res Bull. 2005 Oct 30;67(4):290-7. Review.
PMID: 16182936 [PubMed - in process]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16182936>

"There is an emergent view among North American
researchers and bioethicists that not only is the use of
sham surgery ethical, but that it should also be
mandatory when conducting trials to evaluate surgical
procedures such as neural grafting. This view is based on
erroneous assumptions concerning the magnitude of the
placebo effects associated with surgery. A detailed
analysis of four recent clinical trials failed to provide
consistent evidence for pronounced and long term
improvements in sham operated patients. There was no
evidence that the results of the placebo control groups
were necessary for identifying unsafe and ineffectual
surgical procedures. We contend that the advancement of
clinical science and the protection of individual
patients are best guaranteed by adopting the principles
of evidence-based medicine."

Kim SY, Frank S, Holloway R, Zimmerman C, Wilson R, Kieburtz K.
Science and ethics of sham surgery: a survey of Parkinson disease clinical
researchers.
Arch Neurol. 2005 Sep;62(9):1357-60.
PMID: 16157742 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t_uids=16157742>

"BACKGROUND: Sham surgery is used in neurosurgical
clinical trials in Parkinson disease (PD) but remains
controversial. The controversy may be compounded when
gene-transfer technologies are tested in sham surgical
trials. OBJECTIVE: To determine the perspective of PD
clinical researchers on the science and ethics of sham-
surgery controls when used to test novel interventions
such as gene transfer for PD. DESIGN: Internet survey
eliciting both quantitative and qualitative responses.
PARTICIPANTS: Investigator members of the Parkinson Study
Group. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 103 (61.3%) of
168 researchers. A large majority (97%) of PD clinical
researchers believe sham-surgery controls are better than
unblinded controls for testing the efficacy of
neurosurgical interventions such as gene transfer for PD.
Half of the researchers believe an unblinded control
efficacy trial would be unethical because it may lead to
a falsely positive result. A minority (less than 22%)
believe that an invasive sham condition that involves
penetration of brain tissue is justified. CONCLUSION: It
appears unlikely that the PD clinical research community
will perceive future neurosurgical interventions for PD,
such as gene-transfer therapies, as truly efficacious
unless a sham-control condition is used to test it."

--
Matti Narkia

GMCarter

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:38:41 -0500, Mark Probert
<markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

snip
>
>The claim is that only 20% of medical procedures have been rigorously
>tested. What percentage of what are now well accepted medical procedures
>pre-date the introduction of rigorous testing? What percentage of
>medical procedures are suitable for rigorous testing? What is the basis
>of the claim?

This URL provides a lot of unsettling data--and certainly refutes your
idiotic "100%" comment. How long did it take before we found out about
suicidal depression among teens using antidepressants? An off-label
use. A great deal of western medicine is off label.

That no more makes it worthless than micronutrient, botanical or some
other interventions.

See for example http://www.shef.ac.uk/scharr/ir/percent.html

And here is an extremely disturbing look at your professional
physicians...often, in the US, too busy fighting with HMOs and
paperwork to keep up with the literature (let alone understand it):
http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band55/b55-7.html

George M. Carter

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:06:52 -0500 in article <jlXsf.9363$L75.2871@fe12.lga>
>Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>According to the article
>
>Sharon Kingman.
>Quality Control for Medicine.
>The New Scientist, 17 September 1994.
>
>only 20% of medical procedures had been rigorously tested at that time. Now
>the percentage is surely much higher, but hardly 100%. "Experience of
>professionals" does not count, because 1) alternative medicine practitioners
>can make exactly the same argument, and 2) even for experienced
>professionals it may be impossible to notice a difference between a real
>effect and a placebo effect, which is why randomized controlled clinical
>trials are needed.

Feel free at any time to propose a randomised controlled clinical
trial to prove the effectiveness of surgery to correct a ruptured
appendix. Don't completely randomise it, because you will be in the
placebo group.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:41:55 -0500 in article <bSXsf.852$l06.718@fe11.lga> Mark
>Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>Name one, which cannot.

Splinting a broken leg.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:39:28 -0500 in article <kIYsf.9389$L75.8891@fe12.lga>
>Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>Absolutely false. First, we were discussing only randomized controlled
>clinical trials, not double-blind trials. Don't get confused with the terms.
>Any other treatment or even no treatment would serve as the control group's
>treatment, be it placebo or another, already tested procedure. Surgical
>treatments have been tested and should be tested in randomized controlled
>clinical trials. It's very hard to think of any procedure, which could not
>be tested in randomized controlled clinical trials, right now I cannot
>imagine any such procedure.

Suturing knife wounds.

See, it's easy if you try.

>Secondly, some surgical procedures have been tested even in double-blind
>trials. The control group would have a sham surgery, with similar incision
>as real surgery, or another already rigorously tested surgery with similar
>incision. But because even sham surgery always carries a small risk, perhaps
>sham surgery is not practical (although possible) in testing major surgical
>operations. But for small operations at least it may be sometimes feasible
>to do double-blind trial with sham surgery instead of mere randomized
>controlled trial.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

GMCarter

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:40:25 -0500, Mark Probert
<markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

>No question. Unlike many altmedical philosophies, which are immutable.

Sigh. This merely underscores your abject bigotry.

It's pathetic and not helpful to people trying to make the best
possible treatment decisions.

And largely irrelevant to perhaps 80% of the Earth's population who
have little or no access to western medicines and methodologies.

The privatization of health and drug/diagnostic/devices discovery has
done more to cripple access to care and the development of more
rigorous science than just about anything I can imagine. And the urge
to not serve as a "disincentive to drug development" has helped derail
what meager amounts of research are being conducted among botanical,
micronutrient and other interventions.

George M. Carter

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:38:41 -0500 in article <BHYsf.9388$L75.2672@fe12.lga>
Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>The claim is that only 20% of medical procedures have been rigorously
>tested. What percentage of what are now well accepted medical procedures
>pre-date the introduction of rigorous testing? What percentage of
>medical procedures are suitable for rigorous testing? What is the basis
>of the claim?
>
I believe that 100% or nearly 100% of medical procedures can be rigorously
tested, because I cannot think of any kind of procedure, which couldn't, and
apparently neither can you.

Possible replies to your other questions are not relevant for disproving
your claim that _all_ conventional medicine has been proven. Your claim has
been shown to be incorrect

--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:41:40 GMT in article
<5fp8r11htfsjmp87d39fhi1bcglfpev7cu@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Suturing knife wounds.
>
>See, it's easy if you try.
>
Not so fast. As insane it may sound, there's nothing to stop knife wound
patients to be randomized into two or more treatment groups. Remember, we
are not discussing double blind trials, which are only a special case of
randomized controlled clinical trials. In future we may even have another
realistic treatment option which some kind of space-age wonder cream, which
stops the bleeding and seals the wound or whatever science may come up with.
So randomizing is possible, although perhaps not sensible now or in
foreseeable future, because right now we don't have feasible alternative to
be tested.

--
Matti Narkia

Mr-Natural-Health

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Mark Probert wrote:

>
> Experience of the professionals, IMNSHO, does count. The experience of
> well trained and educated physicians in using the medical procedures (a
> term which is not defined in the blurb you posted) on different patients
> in multiple settings is proof of effectiveness.

Well, give the X-Lawyer enough rope and he is all to glad to hang
himself.

Here, Mark argues for the value of clinical experience, and therefore
case studies, over EBM.

Don't you know Mark that Alternative Medicine is all about the value of
clinical experience? And, as I have pointed out above, physicians are
all too happy to practice alternative medicine. And, that includes
homeopathy.

Just thought that the X-lawyer might want to know.

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:40:38 GMT in article
<qdp8r1hkuetmrgqqv687d5ovadj1fmvtue@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Splinting a broken leg.

Again not so fast. Similar comment as for suturing knife wounds applies
here, too. Right now or in foreseeable future we may not have a feasible
treatment to test against, but if such treatment ever emerges, randomization
into two or more treatment groups is certainly possible. And in this case as
well as in suturing knife wounds randomized controlled clinical trial
testing against placebo would now certainly be _possible_ but senseless,
because we all know what happens, if we leave knife wound or broke leg
untreated. I think that practically 100% of procedures _can_ be tested in
randomized controlled clinical trials, but in some cases testing does not
make sense, at least not at the present time.

--
Matti Narkia

Mr-Natural-Health

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Mark Probert wrote:

> Surgery. If you can come up with a surgical placebo, you will be rich.

The practice of surgery should be separated from conventional medicine,
as it is in Europe.

Surgery has been historically classified by the educated physicians of
Europe as lower class manual labor that is fit only for the
barber-surgeons, but is not lofty enough for the physician aristocrats.

Surgery developed out of necessity and by trial and error.

Alternative medicine places great weight in learning from clinical
experience by trial and error.

Just thought that the X-Lawyer might want to know.

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:39:25 GMT in article
<p4p8r118sbv3ugt4u7lonuuav85uo33ouu@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Feel free at any time to propose a randomised controlled clinical
>trial to prove the effectiveness of surgery to correct a ruptured
>appendix. Don't completely randomise it, because you will be in the
>placebo group.

Again, randomized controlled clinical trial is certainly possible, but may
not make sense, unless a another promising treatment candidate is available.
Control group does not need to be placebo, actually in serious diseases like
for example cancer it hardly ever is. Same applies to many emergency
treatments. To test a serious condition, for which obviously correcting
procedure exist, in randomized controlled clinical trial you need another
treatment option.

--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:15:50 +0200 in article
<buq8r1d0opmmjcfoe1hfsaj5vp8tccu7cc@4ax.com> Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:40:38 GMT in article
><qdp8r1hkuetmrgqqv687d5ovadj1fmvtue@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>
>Again not so fast. Similar comment as for suturing knife wounds applies
>here, too. Right now or in foreseeable future we may not have a feasible
>treatment to test against, but if such treatment ever emerges, randomization
>into two or more treatment groups is certainly possible. And in this case as
>well as in suturing knife wounds randomized controlled clinical trial
>testing against placebo would now certainly be _possible_ but senseless,
>because we all know what happens, if we leave knife wound or broke leg
>untreated. I think that practically 100% of procedures _can_ be tested in
>randomized controlled clinical trials, but in some cases testing does not
>make sense, at least not at the present time.

And use of common sense is allowed. If a treatment cures a condition, which
is not known to heal by itself, in 100% or nearly 100% of cases, there is no
need to test that procedure until a feasible alternative emerges, which
could potential cure the condition even faster or in "better way", whatever
that may mean for the condition in question. Still, testing would be
possible, but futile, if there is no alternative and their is practically no
statistical variance in the 100& or near 100% cure rate of the current
treatment.

--
Matti Narkia

JanD

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

"Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:HKYsf.9394$L75.6343@fe12.lga...
> JanD wrote:
>
> And, toots, you cannot post without abusing, stalking and harassing me.

Sorry that EXCUSE won't fly. the FACT is, YOU lied.

Now DO SHOW THE PROOF, of your LYING claim.

You can NOT, because, YOU know it is a BLATANT LIE.

That is NOT abuse, that is NOT stalking, that is NOT harassing,

That is calling it like it IS.

You can NOT tell BLATANT LIES, and expect NOT to be called on them.

> I was just surprised there was not religious slur, as you often do.

YOU are a example of exactly what I have spoke of where I mentioned the LIES
coming mostly from the JEWS here. YOU tell the MAJORITY of LIES here. I
would think you would learn, but alas, YOU keep getting worse. YOU are a
disgrace to ALL Jewish poeple.

YOU and YOU ALONE are RESPONSIBLE for your behavior.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> TCM = Traditional chinese medicine. Alt Med.
>
>

JanD

2005-12-29, 6:05 pm

"GMCarter" <fiar@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:flo8r1901ks5phj89i9kcu34dhuglimf4i@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:06:52 -0500, Mark Probert
> <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Using that loose a definition of "Testing" you could claim everything
> has been tested. How utterly absurd.
>
> Indeed, There are data from BMJ (I must find the cite--vol 303?) that
> only about 15% of pharmaceutical drugs are "evidence-based" tested. A
> stricter definition, for sure.
>
>
> That is a complete lie. Are there cases of products that get to market
> without testing that don't have even the benefit of empirical
> observations of a traditional form of medicine? You bet.
>
> However, there are ample and increasing data for a variety of agents
> that show efficacy for various indications. Are there adequate data?
> Of course not. It is an ongoing process.
>
> But these kinds of claims merely make you look like a reactionary
> idiot.
>
> George M. Carter

Thank you, George.

A voice of reason.

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-30, 1:06 am

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:38:41 -0500 in article <BHYsf.9388$L75.2672@fe12.lga>
>Mark Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>I believe that 100% or nearly 100% of medical procedures can be rigorously
>tested, because I cannot think of any kind of procedure, which couldn't, and
>apparently neither can you.

Immobilisation for spinal injuries.

Lavage of grazes and other dirty wounds.

Morphine for pain relief.

Anesthesia for organ transplant operations.

Freezing and surgery for melanoma.

Of course all of these could be subject to trials, and I would hope
that you would volunteer to be in the placebo group for each.

>Possible replies to your other questions are not relevant for disproving
>your claim that _all_ conventional medicine has been proven. Your claim has
>been shown to be incorrect
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-30, 1:06 am

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:41:40 GMT in article
><5fp8r11htfsjmp87d39fhi1bcglfpev7cu@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>Not so fast. As insane it may sound, there's nothing to stop knife wound
>patients to be randomized into two or more treatment groups. Remember, we
>are not discussing double blind trials, which are only a special case of
>randomized controlled clinical trials. In future we may even have another
>realistic treatment option which some kind of space-age wonder cream, which
>stops the bleeding and seals the wound or whatever science may come up with.
>So randomizing is possible, although perhaps not sensible now or in
>foreseeable future, because right now we don't have feasible alternative to
>be tested.

Moving goalposts noted.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-30, 1:06 am

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:40:38 GMT in article
><qdp8r1hkuetmrgqqv687d5ovadj1fmvtue@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>
>Again not so fast. Similar comment as for suturing knife wounds applies
>here, too. Right now or in foreseeable future we may not have a feasible
>treatment to test against, but if such treatment ever emerges, randomization
>into two or more treatment groups is certainly possible. And in this case as
>well as in suturing knife wounds randomized controlled clinical trial
>testing against placebo would now certainly be _possible_ but senseless,
>because we all know what happens, if we leave knife wound or broke leg
>untreated. I think that practically 100% of procedures _can_ be tested in
>randomized controlled clinical trials, but in some cases testing does not
>make sense, at least not at the present time.

Moving goalposts noted.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-30, 1:06 am

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:15:50 +0200 in article
><buq8r1d0opmmjcfoe1hfsaj5vp8tccu7cc@4ax.com> Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>And use of common sense is allowed. If a treatment cures a condition, which
>is not known to heal by itself, in 100% or nearly 100% of cases, there is no
>need to test that procedure until a feasible alternative emerges, which
>could potential cure the condition even faster or in "better way", whatever
>that may mean for the condition in question. Still, testing would be
>possible, but futile, if there is no alternative and their is practically no
>statistical variance in the 100& or near 100% cure rate of the current
>treatment.

Goalposts moved even further.

You really don't get it, do you?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-30, 1:06 am

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:39:25 GMT in article
><p4p8r118sbv3ugt4u7lonuuav85uo33ouu@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>
>Again, randomized controlled clinical trial is certainly possible, but may
>not make sense, unless a another promising treatment candidate is available.
>Control group does not need to be placebo, actually in serious diseases like
>for example cancer it hardly ever is. Same applies to many emergency
>treatments. To test a serious condition, for which obviously correcting
>procedure exist, in randomized controlled clinical trial you need another
>treatment option.

Goalposts outside field.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Matti Narkia

2005-12-30, 1:06 am

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:15:07 GMT in article
<1du8r1h0290uldug3vic3opmlt99jbvuud@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Immobilisation for spinal injuries.
>
>Lavage of grazes and other dirty wounds.
>
>Morphine for pain relief.
>
>Anesthesia for organ transplant operations.
>
>Freezing and surgery for melanoma.
>
>Of course all of these could be subject to trials, and I would hope
>that you would volunteer to be in the placebo group for each.
>
As you said all of these could be subjected to randomized trials, so why to
bring them up? Out of frustration? Also, if I or anyone else would volunteer
for placebo group or for any group for that matter, it wouldn't be
randomized trial, would it? And why such a hostility, are you for some
reason currently unable to discuss matter objectively, without wishing
undesirable things to happen to other debaters? ;-). If so, perhaps you
should wait for the more appropriate moment?

And of course, as mentioned before, trials don't have to be against placebo
for the reasons given earlier. And, as also mentioned earlier, use of common
sense is possible. Not everything which can be tested statistically. needs
to be tested so, especially, if there is practically no statistical variance
in the outcome of the treatment, and no realistic treatment alternative.

--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:16:20 GMT in article
<t0v8r1lagg2ik8rj0g99l1onaj9e4e8vrq@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Moving goalposts noted.

Erroneously.

--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:17:40 GMT in article
<v2v8r11q0jf7t9oacfr2mfkdeps7aburos@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Goalposts moved even further.
>
In your imagination.

>You really don't get it, do you?

Get exactly what? You havent made any valid point so far.

--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:16:48 GMT in article
<32v8r1ha6mjur8rbk094kt4a8q39d4bkl0@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Moving goalposts noted.

If you have run out of arguments and have to resort to this kind of silly
one-liners, it may sensible to call it quits. I have no interest in
exchanging half-witty one-liners with you or anyone else.

--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:18:22 GMT in article
<05v8r1thfpninjthnd7r1gelbjiifcinkl@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Goalposts outside field.

Heh, f that's the best you can do, it's futile to continue :-). You can
continue repeating your one-liners, if gives you pleasure ;-).

--
Matti Narkia

Rich

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

"Matti Narkia" <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:raq8r1pfkbulmdmvrqejd36t0rjjiivgs0@4ax.com...
> Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:41:40 GMT in article
> <5fp8r11htfsjmp87d39fhi1bcglfpev7cu@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
> <myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
> Not so fast. As insane it may sound, there's nothing to stop knife wound
> patients to be randomized into two or more treatment groups. Remember, we
> are not discussing double blind trials, which are only a special case of
> randomized controlled clinical trials. In future we may even have another
> realistic treatment option which some kind of space-age wonder cream,
> which
> stops the bleeding and seals the wound or whatever science may come up
> with.
> So randomizing is possible, although perhaps not sensible now or in
> foreseeable future, because right now we don't have feasible alternative
> to
> be tested.

Actually, lacerations and suturing are a good example of physician
experience coming into play. Anyone who works in an emergency room sees many
lacerations, some fresh and clean, some old and dirty and infected. It is
not difficult to predict the outcome of any given laceration based on
experience. Wounds that are sutured are even MORE likely to become infected
than wounds that are left open to heal, particularly if the mechanism of
injury is infectuous. For that reason, dog bite injuries are usually not
closed at all unless they are on the face where cosmetic result is an issue.
Also, we seldom close wounds more than five hours old, and never those more
than a day old, or those that already show signs of infection. Fresh but
dirty wounds we close only after copious irrigation, and then often close
only loosely. All this is from experience. There may have been studies done,
but I have not read them, and I don't believe that they are necessary. There
have been studies of new closure methods, such as the use of staples or of
cyanoacrilate adhesives. Those were compared to sutures in randomized
trials, and rightly so.
--

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Rich

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

"Mr-Natural-Health" <johngohde@naturalhealthperspective.com> wrote in
message news:1135898027.682091.75000@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>
> The practice of surgery should be separated from conventional medicine,
> as it is in Europe.
>
> Surgery has been historically classified by the educated physicians of
> Europe as lower class manual labor that is fit only for the
> barber-surgeons, but is not lofty enough for the physician aristocrats.

Bullshit! History aside, the modern day surgeon is a physician who can
operate, and takes a back seat to no other doctor. Surgery is not just the
highly skilled physical manipulation of tissues, but the far more important
skills of knowing what procedure to perform on whom. A surgeon's knowledge
of physiology matches that of the internest, and his knowledge of anatomy
surpasses all.
--

--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/

Matti Narkia

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:18:41 GMT in article
<5O0tf.8414$ka.7582@tornado.socal.rr.com> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com>
wrote:
>
>"Matti Narkia" <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:raq8r1pfkbulmdmvrqejd36t0rjjiivgs0@4ax.com...
>
>
>Actually, lacerations and suturing are a good example of physician
>experience coming into play. Anyone who works in an emergency room sees many
>lacerations, some fresh and clean, some old and dirty and infected. It is
>not difficult to predict the outcome of any given laceration based on
>experience. Wounds that are sutured are even MORE likely to become infected
>than wounds that are left open to heal, particularly if the mechanism of
>injury is infectuous. For that reason, dog bite injuries are usually not
>closed at all unless they are on the face where cosmetic result is an issue.
>Also, we seldom close wounds more than five hours old, and never those more
>than a day old, or those that already show signs of infection. Fresh but
>dirty wounds we close only after copious irrigation, and then often close
>only loosely. All this is from experience. There may have been studies done,
>but I have not read them, and I don't believe that they are necessary. There
>have been studies of new closure methods, such as the use of staples or of
>cyanoacrilate adhesives. Those were compared to sutures in randomized
>trials, and rightly so.

Well, as I said earlier, use of common sense is not prohibited. Obvious
things do not need testing. If the leg of a chair breaks, you don't need to
test different fixing methods, you know what to do (or most people do :-)).

--
Matti Narkia

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:15:07 GMT in article
><1du8r1h0290uldug3vic3opmlt99jbvuud@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>As you said all of these could be subjected to randomized trials, so why to
>bring them up? Out of frustration? Also, if I or anyone else would volunteer
>for placebo group or for any group for that matter, it wouldn't be
>randomized trial, would it? And why such a hostility, are you for some
>reason currently unable to discuss matter objectively, without wishing
>undesirable things to happen to other debaters? ;-). If so, perhaps you
>should wait for the more appropriate moment?
>
>And of course, as mentioned before, trials don't have to be against placebo
>for the reasons given earlier. And, as also mentioned earlier, use of common
>sense is possible. Not everything which can be tested statistically. needs
>to be tested so, especially, if there is practically no statistical variance
>in the outcome of the treatment, and no realistic treatment alternative.

Goalposts in the next suburb.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 02:18:41 GMT in article
><5O0tf.8414$ka.7582@tornado.socal.rr.com> "Rich" <joshew@hawaii.rr.com>
>wrote:
>
>Well, as I said earlier, use of common sense is not prohibited. Obvious
>things do not need testing. If the leg of a chair breaks, you don't need to
>test different fixing methods, you know what to do (or most people do :-)).

Admission of defeat noted.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:17:40 GMT in article
><v2v8r11q0jf7t9oacfr2mfkdeps7aburos@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>In your imagination.
>
>
>Get exactly what? You havent made any valid point so far.

That's what I mean. You just don't get it, do you?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:16:48 GMT in article
><32v8r1ha6mjur8rbk094kt4a8q39d4bkl0@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>
>If you have run out of arguments and have to resort to this kind of silly
>one-liners, it may sensible to call it quits. I have no interest in
>exchanging half-witty one-liners with you or anyone else.

You really, really don't understand how stupid and deceptive you look,
do you?

I will type it slowly.

You made a claim about tested medical procedures. Every time I show
you an exception to what you say, you change the rules.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Peter Bowditch

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:18:22 GMT in article
><05v8r1thfpninjthnd7r1gelbjiifcinkl@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:
>
>
>Heh, f that's the best you can do, it's futile to continue :-). You can
>continue repeating your one-liners, if gives you pleasure ;-).

You must be as dense as a goalpost if you can't understand what I am
getting at.
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

Bill Braun

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

Mark Probert wrote:
> Bill Braun wrote:
>
>
>
> I have no question that the 20% is accurate. I question the conclusions
> drwn by people. Most often, the 20% claim is used to infer that all the
> rest of medicine is equal to that of untested and unproven alternative
> medicine "treatments". That is not the case, as the 80% that is not
> proven by RCTs etc. is proven on the battlefield by educated and trained
> professionals who are able to discern what works and what does not. In
> Altmed, that is not the case. The two do not equate.
>
One could argue that "unproven" traditional medicine does equal
"unproven" alternative medicine. In both cases there is a lot of
anecdotal evidence. All depends, I suppose, on what anecdotal evidence
you rate higher than other anecdotal evidence.

It is clear that we've come to accept one type of anecdotal evidence
(i.e., the tradition of allopathic, western medicine) more than
alternative medicine. In the absence of evidence, however, what do we
really have to go on?

I tend to rely on the validity of allopathic medicine at the same time
I'm pretty open to the possibilities of altrernative medicine.

Does it have to be either/or? Any possibility it is both/and?

Bill B.

Happy Dog

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

"Matti Narkia" <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:
>
> Again not so fast. Similar comment as for suturing knife wounds applies
> here, too. Right now or in foreseeable future we may not have a feasible
> treatment to test against, but if such treatment ever emerges,
> randomization

"Feasible"? Who decides if it's feasible and how? You aren't even an
interesting solipsist.

moo

Happy Dog

2005-12-30, 1:07 am

"Matti Narkia" <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <v2v8r11q0jf7t9oacfr2mfkdeps7aburos@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
> In your imagination.
>
>
> Get exactly what? You havent made any valid point so far.

Diane??? Dat you?

moo

GMCarter

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:05:40 +0200, Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com>
wrote:
..,.
>Not so fast. As insane it may sound, there's nothing to stop knife wound
>patients to be randomized into two or more treatment groups. Remember, we
>are not discussing double blind trials, which are only a special case of
>randomized controlled clinical trials. In future we may even have another
>realistic treatment option which some kind of space-age wonder cream, which
>stops the bleeding and seals the wound or whatever science may come up with.
>So randomizing is possible, although perhaps not sensible now or in
>foreseeable future, because right now we don't have feasible alternative to
>be tested.

Ah--Matt is correct and the conversation points to a fundamental. What
is the question?

If it is "should one suture knife wounds" then I think it may be
difficult to randomize between suturing and NOT suturing. This would
be hard to design a study around!

However, suture materials change or techniques may change somewhat.
THIS could be the question: is one equivalent or inferior to another
suture or method of suturing? People could then be randomized quite
readily between the newer technique and the standard of care.

George M. Carter

Matti Narkia

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:39:22 GMT in article
<rta9r19p0c8cjfpqc9ujeqbug0e63rr5mo@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Goalposts in the next suburb.

I take that as an admission of defeat ;-)

--
Matti Narkia

Matti Narkia

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

Fri, 30 Dec 2005 03:43:38 GMT in article
<o3b9r1hmp0eru43fnnaea7ska3asu4iphr@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
<myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>You really, really don't understand how stupid and deceptive you look,
>do you?
>
No, I'm not the one who resorted to silly one-liner in lack of arguments
;-).

>I will type it slowly.
>
>You made a claim about tested medical procedures. Every time I show
>you an exception to what you say, you change the rules.

I said that practically every medical procedure can be tested in randomized
controlled clinical trials. You haven't shown a single procedure which
cannot. But even when a thing can be tested, it does not mean it has to,
obvious things don't _need_ statistical testing, although they could be
tested. But when another option for an obvious thing becomes available,
testing may be needed to settle out which one is better (unless that also is
obvious).

--
Matti Narkia

Mark Probert

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

Bill Braun wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
>
> One could argue that "unproven" traditional medicine does equal
> "unproven" alternative medicine. In both cases there is a lot of
> anecdotal evidence. All depends, I suppose, on what anecdotal evidence
> you rate higher than other anecdotal evidence.
>
> It is clear that we've come to accept one type of anecdotal evidence
> (i.e., the tradition of allopathic, western medicine) more than
> alternative medicine. In the absence of evidence, however, what do we
> really have to go on?
>
> I tend to rely on the validity of allopathic medicine at the same time
> I'm pretty open to the possibilities of altrernative medicine.
>
> Does it have to be either/or? Any possibility it is both/and?

I will go for both/and when there is some science to back up the
both/and. When the science says otherwise, no way.

Mark Probert

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

GMCarter wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:40:25 -0500, Mark Probert
> <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> Sigh. This merely underscores your abject bigotry.

Bigotry?

>
> It's pathetic and not helpful to people trying to make the best
> possible treatment decisions.
>
> And largely irrelevant to perhaps 80% of the Earth's population who
> have little or no access to western medicines and methodologies.
>
> The privatization of health and drug/diagnostic/devices discovery has
> done more to cripple access to care and the development of more
> rigorous science than just about anything I can imagine. And the urge
> to not serve as a "disincentive to drug development" has helped derail
> what meager amounts of research are being conducted among botanical,
> micronutrient and other interventions.
>
> George M. Carter
>

Mark Probert

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

JanD wrote:
> "Mark Probert" <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
> news:HKYsf.9394$L75.6343@fe12.lga...

snip

>
>
> YOU are a example of exactly what I have spoke of where I mentioned the LIES
> coming mostly from the JEWS here. YOU tell the MAJORITY of LIES here. I
> would think you would learn, but alas, YOU keep getting worse. YOU are a
> disgrace to ALL Jewish poeple.
>
> YOU and YOU ALONE are RESPONSIBLE for your behavior.

You, and you alone are responsible for your bigotry.

Thanks for more proof.

Herman Rubin

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

In article <c3j8r1tp58hciiohj0ocfg2ns6komsthkg@4ax.com>,
Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 15:41:55 -0500 in article <bSXsf.852$l06.718@fe11.lga> Mark
>Probert <markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]

[vbcol=seagreen]

[vbcol=seagreen]

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]

Experience of professionals is OFTEN wrong. One of the
best-known cases is that of the Heimlich maneuver, which
was opposed by most. Another is the effect of bed rest
or the lack of it on recovery; this was upset by someone
who refused to stay in bed after an appendectomy, and the
experience, including rigorous testing, proved the old
approach entirely wrong. Before this, long hospital stays
were quite common, and it was this, not money, which
caused them to be shortened.
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]

.....................
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Name one, which cannot.

This is too easy. Diets, exercise programs, operations.

One cannot tell people, "You will eat precisely this for
the rest of your life", or even for five years, and do
this for randomly selected, or matched, individuals. The
same holds for exercise programs. Nor can one give some
people operations and others not and not have them know.

>--
>Matti Narkia

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Herman Rubin

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

In article <khi8r1hajbne31n2crnp4nb463fbkoiasm@4ax.com>,
Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thu, 29 Dec 2005 22:35:23 +0200 in article
><m4h8r1ptu1s2ah5nerknoor27bbtjvnt7l@4ax.com> Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com>
>wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Moreover, medical truths are usually not eternal. There is this interesting
>article, which for example found out that the half-life of medical truth was
>45 years:

>Poynard T, Munteanu M, Ratziu V, Benhamou Y, Di Martino V, Taieb J, Opolon
>P.
>Truth survival in clinical research: an evidence-based requiem?
>Ann Intern Med. 2002 Jun 18;136(12):888-95.
>PMID: 12069563 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
><http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...3&dopt=Abstract>
><http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/136/12/888>
><http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/136/12/888.pdf> (full text)

>Abtract:

> "PURPOSE: Factors associated with the survival of truth
> of clinical conclusions in the medical literature are
> unknown. The authors hypothesized that conclusions
> derived from studies using better methodology should have
> a longer half-life. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE and hand
> searches of journals with studies on cirrhosis and
> hepatitis. STUDY SELECTION: Original articles and meta-
> analyses published from 1945 to 1999 about cirrhosis or
> hepatitis in adults. DATA SYNTHESIS: In 2000, 285 of 474
> conclusions (60%) were still considered to be true, 91
> (19%) were considered to be obsolete, and 98 (21%) were
> considered to be false. The half-life of truth was 45
> years. The 20-year survival of conclusions derived from
> meta-analysis was lower (57% +/- 10%) than that from
> nonrandomized studies (87% +/- 2%) (P < 0.001) or
> randomized trials (85% +/- 3%) (P < 0.001). The survival
> of conclusions was not different when studies of high
> methodologic quality were compared with those of low
> quality. In randomized trials, the 50-year survival rate
> was higher for 52 negative conclusions (68% +/- 13%) than
> for 118 positive conclusions (14% +/- 4%) (P < 0.001).
> CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to the authors' hypothesis,
> conclusions based on recognized, good methodology had no
> clear survival advantage. To better convince clinicians
> of the long-term utility of evidence-based medicine,
> better prognostic factors should be developed."

I have long criticized the use of P-values and other
significance test. The use of statistics in medicine
is clearly flawed; we have a decision problem, in which
the utility function is essentially that of the individual
patient, and the input NECESSARILY has a lot of subjectivity.

Meta-analyses have additional statistical problems, as
negative results frequently are not published. However,
I am still surprised at the survival of any negative
results, at least if these were statements about
significance. Non-randomized studies suffer from
selection bias, and this never gets removed.

BTW, I do not know what the authors call "negative".

There are more powerful statistical procedures available;
at this time, they often do not get what is wanted, as
it cannot be ascertained. Statistics cannot get anything
not deducible from the data and the ASSUMPTIONS. The
assumptions are quite important, and using the ritual
methods makes more of them, and incorrect ones, than the
researchers are aware of.

>--
>Matti Narkia

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Herman Rubin

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

In article <mep8r1to5a9ujf8hq8sc95c61votf3lb7i@4ax.com>,
GMCarter <noway@nowherenospam.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Dec 2005 16:40:25 -0500, Mark Probert
><markprobert@lumbercartel.com> wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
>Sigh. This merely underscores your abject bigotry.

>It's pathetic and not helpful to people trying to make the best
>possible treatment decisions.

>And largely irrelevant to perhaps 80% of the Earth's population who
>have little or no access to western medicines and methodologies.

>The privatization of health and drug/diagnostic/devices discovery has
>done more to cripple access to care and the development of more
>rigorous science than just about anything I can imagine. And the urge
>to not serve as a "disincentive to drug development" has helped derail
>what meager amounts of research are being conducted among botanical,
>micronutrient and other interventions.

> George M. Carter

This has always been mainly private; government agencies
would not be as active. The restrictions above are by
government agencies, designed to keep "unproved" treatments
from the public.

There are situations in which an unproved treatment is the
way to go, and in which supposedly proved ones are not.

To understand this, one needs to look at all problems in
medicine (and anything else) as decision problems. This
WILL give you a totally different perspective; the idea
that there are "safe, effective" procedures is nonsense,
and absent public health issues like the spread of disease,
the decision needs to be made by the individual.

Waiting strategies are permissible; it is necessary to
consider ALL the consequences of a given action in ALL
states of nature, and this cannot be done "objectively".

--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Herman Rubin

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

In article <rbs8r1hhuo0inkdte96uplm0idnqgp74h0@4ax.com>,
Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 01:15:50 +0200 in article
><buq8r1d0opmmjcfoe1hfsaj5vp8tccu7cc@4ax.com> Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com>
>wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]

[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]

[vbcol=seagreen]

.....................
[vbcol=seagreen]
>And use of common sense is allowed. If a treatment cures a condition, which
>is not known to heal by itself, in 100% or nearly 100% of cases, there is no
>need to test that procedure until a feasible alternative emerges, which
>could potential cure the condition even faster or in "better way", whatever
>that may mean for the condition in question. Still, testing would be
>possible, but futile, if there is no alternative and their is practically no
>statistical variance in the 100& or near 100% cure rate of the current
>treatment.

Not by the FDA. A treatment was proposed for ALS, for which
no reasonable survival has been found. The FDA insisted that
1/3 of the patients receive a placebo.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Herman Rubin

2005-12-30, 11:01 am

In article <eev8r1pact5bf5kpkt6da8064ufjp22q9f@4ax.com>,
Matti Narkia <narkia@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Fri, 30 Dec 2005 00:15:07 GMT in article
><1du8r1h0290uldug3vic3opmlt99jbvuud@4ax.com> Peter Bowditch
><myfirstname@ratbags.com> wrote:

[vbcol=seagreen]

...................
[vbcol=seagreen]
>And of course, as mentioned before, trials don't have to be against placebo
>for the reasons given earlier. And, as also mentioned earlier, use of common
>sense is possible. Not everything which can be tested statistically. needs
>to be tested so, especially, if there is practically no statistical variance
>in the outcome of the treatment, and no realistic treatment alternative.

I am unaware of any treatment for which there is so little
statistical variance in the outcome. It may be that the
treatment itself has little variance itself, but the
underlying state of the patient has enough that this
will be present.

There are also few cases of "no realistic treatment
alternative".

Nature has handed us lots of lemons; we have to learn to
make lots of types of lemonade.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558