Freud operated on a woman's nose in a ridiculous attempt to cure her of masturbation
Question:
On a lighter note, if Freud had operated on the woman’s fingers instead he might have had a better result in stopping her from masturbating 
hohohoho…(just in case, that was meant as a joke and not to be taken seriously – before I get battered by a deluge of ‘immoral surgery’ flames!) FF — "Life in the fast lane Surely make you lose your mind Life in the fast lane, everything all the time" – The Eagles
Response:
> >religious practitioners but not as medical practitioners. They should >be forced to admit to themselves and to the world that they reject >science and objective standards, and they should never be allowed to >sell the drugs they prescribe [9].
I disagree with this position paper (posted by Hopper). Just a couple points spring to my mind to contest the idea that the allopathic medicine dominant in this country only since the 1940s is more "scientific" and incomparably superior to the so-called "new age"medicine that is performed here and in the rest of the world. Consider first the "placebo effect". This and the "double blind" test format are the philosophical bedrock of current western medicine. How many medicines are approved each year by the FDA for which the net observed therapeutic benefits (minus placebo) are are less than that of the placebo effect itself? Most, I would guess. But what is known WITHIN our allopathic system about this mysterious and all-powerful placebo effect — the defacto baseline for allopathic, ahem, cures? Could we say zero? Well, that cant be the case. Every FDA-sanctioned study "proves" something about the "placebo" and the various diseases it "effects". But again, what do we choose to study? My point is to question that superior "science" is at work here. Other healing modalities DO have integrated theories that address the roles of belief, energy and homeostasis (internal healing mechanisms). Why doesn’t allopathy? Personally, I am a proponent of meditation, the practice of change through careful attention to subtle mental, emotional and physical processes. Allopathy is not necessarily a "superior" science. It is merely a "science" and one that has been blinded to its own roots. To prove my point about science, I "tested" my theory by doing a quick search for "placebo effect" to see what currently is "known" within the field. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42930-2002May6.html Against Depression, a Sugar Pill Is Hard to Beat Placebos Improve Mood, Change Brain Chemistry in Majority of Trials of Antidepressants By Shankar Vedantam Washington Post Staff Writer Tuesday, May 7, 2002; Page A01 After thousands of studies, hundreds of millions of prescriptions and tens of billions of dollars in sales, two things are certain about pills that treat depression: Antidepressants like Prozac, Paxil and Zoloft work. And so do sugar pills. A new analysis has found that in the majority of trials conducted by drug companies in recent decades, sugar pills have done as well as — or better than — antidepressants. Companies have had to conduct numerous trials to get two that show a positive result, which is the Food and Drug Administration’s minimum for approval. What’s more, the sugar pills, or placebos, cause profound changes in the same areas of the brain affected by the medicines, according to research published last week. …. The article continues (see link) what was interesting to me was the discussion offered by various md’s regarding these on-going findings: http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&th=d9b8db605e1acb7… Objectively Yours, Josh
Response:
> Consider first the "placebo effect". This and the "double blind" test > format are the philosophical bedrock of current western medicine. How > many medicines are approved each year by the FDA for which the net > observed therapeutic benefits (minus placebo) are are less than that > of the placebo effect itself? Most, I would guess.
By that, I presume, you believe the sugar pill to be an absence of treatment? > Personally, I am a proponent of meditation, the practice of change > through careful attention to subtle mental, emotional and physical > processes.
A very useful process. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Allopathy is not necessarily a "superior" science. It is merely a > "science" and one that has been blinded to its own roots. > To prove my point about science, I "tested" my theory by doing a quick > search for "placebo effect" to see what currently is "known" within > the field. > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A42930-2002May6.html > Against Depression, a Sugar Pill Is Hard to Beat > Placebos Improve Mood, Change Brain Chemistry > in Majority of Trials of Antidepressants > By Shankar Vedantam > Washington Post Staff Writer > Tuesday, May 7, 2002; Page A01 > After thousands of studies, hundreds of millions of prescriptions > and tens of billions of dollars in sales, two things are certain > about pills that treat depression: Antidepressants like Prozac, > Paxil and Zoloft work. And so do sugar pills. > A new analysis has found that in the majority of trials conducted by > drug companies in recent decades, sugar pills have done as well as > — or better than — antidepressants. Companies have had to conduct > numerous trials to get two that show a positive result, which is the > Food and Drug Administration’s minimum for approval.
This statement is taken so out of context, it no longer has any validity. Placebo groups in clinical trials are not untreated. This is a common misconception among both medical practitioners and laypeople, alike. If you’ve ever taken part in a clinical study (I have), you know this already. Seattle psychiatrist Arif Khan found that in 52% of the trials, the effect of the drug could not be distinguished from the placebo. http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/research/story/0,9865,740721,0… Here’s what the author, indirectly referred to by the Post, said: From http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p000429.html, written by Khan himself: "Altogether, 8,731 depressed patients participated in 45 pivotal clinical trials. Of these, 4,510 were assigned to the investigational antidepressants, 1,416 to established antidepressants (imipramine [Tofranil], amitriptyline [Elavil, Endep] or trazodone [Desyrel]) and 2,805 to placebo. Statistical analysis indicated that all of the antidepressants were significantly superior to placebo in decreasing the HAM-D score total. Of note was the positive relationship between duration of clinical trial and reduction of symptoms: the longer the duration of the clinical trial, the greater the decrease in depressive symptoms, regardless of treatment. Among the placebo-treated patients, the reduction in mean total HAM-D scores was 24.7% in four-week trials, 31.5% in five-week trials, 30.5% in six-week trials and 36.1% in eight-week trials. Correspondingly, the reduction with traditional antidepressants was 28.2% in four-week trials, 44% in six-week trials and 48.1% in eight-week trials. The reduction with investigational antidepressants was 40% in four-week trials, 40.5% in five-week trials, 40.6% in six-week trials and 43.9% in eight-week trials (Khan et al., in press). " **Note this next paragraph, please. Placebo subjects are not untreated.** "The less-than-impressive results in these and other studies also calls to mind the fact that patients assigned to placebo treatment in clinical trials are not "getting nothing." The capsule they receive is pharmacologically inert but hardly inert with respect to its symbolic value and its power as a conditioned stimulus. In addition, placebo-treated patients receive all of the commonly employed treatment techniques: a thorough evaluation; an explanation for their distress; an expert healer; a plausible treatment; expectation of improvement; a healer’s commitment, enthusiasm and positive regard; and an opportunity to verbalize their distress. " He goes on to include a very important warning about the interpretation of his findings: "A cautionary note is indicated about the generalization of these data to the clinical management of depressed patients. The less-than-impressive difference between drug and placebo in this and other studies of clinical trials does not speak directly to the effectiveness of antidepressants in clinical practice. Participants in antidepressant clinical trials are a highly select group and are not representative of the general population of depressed patients. They are not actively suicidal, they are almost always outpatients who are moderately rather than severely or mildly depressed, and they are free of comorbid physical or psychiatric illness. They are likely to have a higher placebo response rate than more severely ill depressed patients. " "Furthermore, the primary aim of these studies is not to assess the optimal effect of antidepressants, but rather to rapidly assess efficacy of new drugs so they can be brought to the market. Therefore, dose, duration and diagnosis in clinical trials are not necessarily ideally suited to identify the optimal effects of antidepressants. Accordingly, clinical trials may identify the lower bound of the effect size compared to placebo. "
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I’m talking mood altering drugs that shrinks prescribe. > Drugs that can >only be tested subjectively by listening to subjective > reports of >patients. > There have been many successful attempts to quantify the > mental state of patients. There are scores for depression, > psychosis, and more. I once took the MMPI which was good > enough for the government to conclude I needed help. >All shrink drugs are suspect because not one single > chemical >imbalance has ever been identified. > What a load of crap. SSRI’s are specifically targeted > towards seretonin imbalances,
They are targetted toward presynaptic serotonin receptors–blocking uptake. It’s not an issue of an "imbalance" of anything. The individual could have exactly as much HT5 that they are supposed to but for some reason the post synaptic receptors are not working as efficiently as they used to. — No medicine is more valuable, none more efficacious, none better suited to the cure of all our temporal ills than a friend to whom we may turn for consolation in time of trouble, and with whom we may share our happiness in time of joy. Saint Ailred of Rivaulx (1109 – 1166) Historian and abbot http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
Response:
HUH?
Response:
> I’m talking mood altering drugs that shrinks prescribe. Drugs that can > only be tested subjectively by listening to subjective reports of > patients.
you don’t get out much do you. The diagnostic process involves more than the subjective report of the patient. — No medicine is more valuable, none more efficacious, none better suited to the cure of all our temporal ills than a friend to whom we may turn for consolation in time of trouble, and with whom we may share our happiness in time of joy. Saint Ailred of Rivaulx (1109 – 1166) Historian and abbot http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
Response:
> I’m talking mood altering drugs that shrinks prescribe. Drugs that can > only be tested subjectively by listening to subjective reports of > patients.
There have been many successful attempts to quantify the mental state of patients. There are scores for depression, psychosis, and more. I once took the MMPI which was good enough for the government to conclude I needed help. > All shrink drugs are suspect because not one single chemical > imbalance has ever been identified.
What a load of crap. SSRI’s are specifically targeted towards seretonin imbalances, and novel antipsychotics tend to focus around dopamine. These are only two examples of identified chemical imbalances. > Drug companies do manage to beat > sugar pills but after numerous tries and by fixing the studies. There > is no double-blinding because patients recognize the taste and > side-effects of meds. Most important, shrink drugs do not make common > sense. How can you bathe a complex organ like the brain in one > chemical and hope to rewire the brain to improve complex
behaviour. Drugs alone can’t do it you’re probably right, but they are needed in some cases. > It > has always been easy to sedate or elevate the mood of the brain. The > problem is that this kind of thing boomerangs back. The fact is that > psychiatry is still in the primitive age and they should not be giving > out these chemicals when there is no clear evidence that they help > anyone more than sugar pills do.
There is plenty of evidence, but you are too blind to see it. > The people that are protesting about these drugs have experienced them > and know they don’t work. History shows that the majority of people > will fall for a placebo no matter how ludicrous it is. Only a few > cynics ever protest. I think you should be listening to
these cynics. I was a cynic once myself, but that was before I relented and took medications. Medications are not placebos and without them I would probably be either dead, from suicide, or homeless. Before I was on my medications, I only earned a 3.0 GPA and later dropped out. After I was on them, I earned a 3.93 GPA and actually graduated. I think that’s a pretty significant result, at least in my eyes. No I wouldn’t qualify it totally as proof, but nothing would be proof to you, not even scientific studies, because you have become blinded by your cynicism. Did you ever think that perhaps some people are beyond what little help these drugs can provide? And you can always blame incompitent doctors if you like. However, I still assert that there are plenty of good medications out there, and that they are not placebos, and claiming they are the equivalent of sugar pills is stupid logic in my opinion. Just ask some of the other people in this newsgroup.
Response:
> Nothing has changed in Psychiatry since Freud. They are no closer to > understanding the brain. They still have not identified a single > chemical imbalance. They are doing the equivalent of pouring dangerous > chemicals on the brain to see what happens. The studies are conducted > by the drug companies and the drugs often still don’t beat a sugar > pill. The companies can conduct study after study on a drug until they > get the result they need to satisfy FDA.
I agree that the approval process is screwed up, but the FDA does a pretty good job with the regulations that it uses. The drug companies are only in it for profit, and have often steamrollered consumers for that very goal. Yet, at the same time, some very good drugs have come out as a result of the system. Trying to place all drugs in the same category doesn’t do them justice. Without a doctor, most medications, whether they are for mental health or regular health, can be dangerous. Trying to single out brain chemical medications and saying they should be banned is like saying all people of a certain race should be eliminated because some of them give a bad example. It’s ironic that some of the people who have flooded this group being against medications have obviously needed to be on them themselves.
Response:
I guess freud must have been about 120 years ahead of his time, you must then admit he was a genius. I think his therapy worked and the woman no longer was self erotic. Go Sigmund.!
Response:
I understand Freud was completely wrong as his subjects were exclusively wealthy, white, young women with too much time and not enough to do. — "All people are unique, only some people are a lot more unique than the rest" – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I guess freud must have been about 120 years ahead of his time, you must > then admit he was a genius. I think his therapy worked and the woman no > longer was self erotic. Go Sigmund.!
Response:
> Bullshit.. nothing has been proved.. psychiatry still has no idea what role dapamine plays > in psychosis..
When are you going to learn that "proved" and "have no idea" are not synonymous? — No medicine is more valuable, none more efficacious, none better suited to the cure of all our temporal ills than a friend to whom we may turn for consolation in time of trouble, and with whom we may share our happiness in time of joy. Saint Ailred of Rivaulx (1109 – 1166) Historian and abbot http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
Response:
says… > When are you going to learn that "proved" and "have no idea" are not > synonymous?
He said ’nothing had been proved’ – not ‘proved’. When are you going to learn how to read?
Response:
> says… >When are you going to learn that "proved" and "have no idea" are not >synonymous? > He said ’nothing had been proved’ – not ‘proved’.
Read it again. s/he/it is putting "proof" at the same level as "hypothesis." "nothing has been proved.. psychiatry still has no idea what role dapamine plays " There are lots of ideas of how neurotransmitters affect brain functioning and most of those ideas have supporting evidence (and note the difference between "support" and "prove." > When are you going to learn how to read?
– No medicine is more valuable, none more efficacious, none better suited to the cure of all our temporal ills than a friend to whom we may turn for consolation in time of trouble, and with whom we may share our happiness in time of joy. Saint Ailred of Rivaulx (1109 – 1166) Historian and abbot http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
Response:
all just hypothsis.. still stalking Irene Mark? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> says… >>When are you going to learn that "proved" and "have no idea" are not >>synonymous? > He said ’nothing had been proved’ – not ‘proved’. >Read it again. >s/he/it is putting "proof" at the same level as "hypothesis." >"nothing has been proved.. psychiatry still has no idea what role >dapamine plays " >There are lots of ideas of how neurotransmitters affect brain >functioning and most of those ideas have supporting evidence (and note >the difference between "support" and "prove." > When are you going to learn how to read?
– C/S/X Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient; a progressive term, in that one begins with the illusion of being a "consumer," is subjected to one or more of the horrors of psychiatric/therapeutic abuse and becomes a "survivor" (if he’s lucky), and quickly realizes that the best way in which to extend his survival and avoid a repetition of the nightmare is to remain permanently an "EX-Patient."
Response:
> all just hypothsis..
who ever said they were anything but? > still stalking Irene Mark?
Did it ever occur to you that there was more than one Mark in the Universe? Not that the other Mark did any stalking. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->>says… >>>When are you going to learn that "proved" and "have no idea" are not >>>synonymous? >>He said ’nothing had been proved’ – not ‘proved’. >Read it again. >s/he/it is putting "proof" at the same level as "hypothesis." >"nothing has been proved.. psychiatry still has no idea what role >dapamine plays " >There are lots of ideas of how neurotransmitters affect brain >functioning and most of those ideas have supporting evidence (and note >the difference between "support" and "prove." >>When are you going to learn how to read? > — > C/S/X > Consumer/Survivor/Ex-Patient; a progressive term, in that one begins with the illusion of > being a "consumer," is subjected to one or more of the horrors of psychiatric/therapeutic > abuse and becomes a "survivor" (if he’s lucky), and quickly realizes that the best way in > which to extend his survival and avoid a repetition of the nightmare is to remain > permanently an "EX-Patient."
– No medicine is more valuable, none more efficacious, none better suited to the cure of all our temporal ills than a friend to whom we may turn for consolation in time of trouble, and with whom we may share our happiness in time of joy. Saint Ailred of Rivaulx (1109 – 1166) Historian and abbot http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Nothing has changed in Psychiatry since Freud. They are no > closer to > understanding the brain. They still have not identified a > single > chemical imbalance. They are doing the equivalent of > pouring dangerous > chemicals on the brain to see what happens. The studies > are conducted > by the drug companies and the drugs often still don’t beat > a sugar > pill. The companies can conduct study after study on a > drug until they > get the result they need to satisfy FDA. > I agree that the approval process is screwed up, but the FDA > does a pretty good job with the regulations that it uses. > The drug companies are only in it for profit, and have often > steamrollered consumers for that very goal. Yet, at the > same time, some very good drugs have come out as a result of > the system. Trying to place all drugs in the same category > doesn’t do them justice. > Without a doctor, most medications, whether they are for > mental health or regular health, can be dangerous. Trying > to single out brain chemical medications and saying they > should be banned is like saying all people of a certain race > should be eliminated because some of them give a bad > example. > It’s ironic that some of the people who have flooded this > group being against medications have obviously needed to be > on them themselves.
I’m talking mood altering drugs that shrinks prescribe. Drugs that can only be tested subjectively by listening to subjective reports of patients. All shrink drugs are suspect because not one single chemical imbalance has ever been identified. Drug companies do manage to beat sugar pills but after numerous tries and by fixing the studies. There is no double-blinding because patients recognize the taste and side-effects of meds. Most important, shrink drugs do not make common sense. How can you bathe a complex organ like the brain in one chemical and hope to rewire the brain to improve complex behaviour. It has always been easy to sedate or elevate the mood of the brain. The problem is that this kind of thing boomerangs back. The fact is that psychiatry is still in the primitive age and they should not be giving out these chemicals when there is no clear evidence that they help anyone more than sugar pills do. The people that are protesting about these drugs have experienced them and know they don’t work. History shows that the majority of people will fall for a placebo no matter how ludicrous it is. Only a few cynics ever protest. I think you should be listening to these cynics.
Response:
Bullshit.. nothing has been proved.. psychiatry still has no idea what role dapamine plays in psychosis.. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Nothing has changed in Psychiatry since Freud. They are no closer to > understanding the brain. >really? tell that to all the neurosugeans who are removing tumors with >precision > They still have not identified a single chemical imbalance. >but what they have done is identified specific neurotransmitters and >identified how those neurotransmitters affect out functioning. We have >done functional imaging studies that have demonstrated that people with >disorder X have underactivation or overactivation of particular parts of >the brain–parts that are known to respond to particular neurotransmitters. >just because you don’t want to believe it, doesnt’ make it false.
Response:
XXY is a real thing that can be tested for. Been out of jail long? Most of you end up in jail.. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >I must be in "disagree mode". >I can tell you "banhappinesspills" that the XXY brain has been studied and >structural differnces have be en noted in it, and I have an XXY brain. I >don’t particularly give a damn if the exact cause and reason for treatment >succeeding is 100% known or 0% known, so long as I can do what I want to do >without causing harm to anyone else, I’m happy. I’m sure I won’t be happy >and I know I was never happy, without my personality altering medication. >See I don’t care about why it works only that it works. If it didn’t work, >as marijuana doen’t work and alcohol doesn’t work I wouldn’t take it, as I >don’t marijuana and alcohol. Of couirse to know those don’t work I had to >give them a decent trail. :-) I can be very content on ‘happy – baccy’ and >’fire water’, but neither solves my shitty temper, piss poor outlook on life >and flambouyant over the top personality, in fact they actually make these >worse as I constantly needed to increase my dosage to get the required >effect. On alcohol ist’s very easy to be ‘over the limit’ on a very small >volume. I have been taking the ‘happypills" for over two years without >needing to alter the dosage at all.
Response:
Nothing has changed in Psychiatry since Freud. They are no closer to understanding the brain. They still have not identified a single chemical imbalance. They are doing the equivalent of pouring dangerous chemicals on the brain to see what happens. The studies are conducted by the drug companies and the drugs often still don’t beat a sugar pill. The companies can conduct study after study on a drug until they get the result they need to satisfy FDA. Btw, the woman almost died of infection since he did not clean the instruments.
Response:
He was high on cocaine and opium at the time.
Response:
> Nothing has changed in Psychiatry since Freud. They are no closer to > understanding the brain.
really? tell that to all the neurosugeans who are removing tumors with precision > They still have not identified a single chemical imbalance.
but what they have done is identified specific neurotransmitters and identified how those neurotransmitters affect out functioning. We have done functional imaging studies that have demonstrated that people with disorder X have underactivation or overactivation of particular parts of the brain–parts that are known to respond to particular neurotransmitters. just because you don’t want to believe it, doesnt’ make it false. — No medicine is more valuable, none more efficacious, none better suited to the cure of all our temporal ills than a friend to whom we may turn for consolation in time of trouble, and with whom we may share our happiness in time of joy. Saint Ailred of Rivaulx (1109 – 1166) Historian and abbot http://home.gwi.net/~mdmpsyd/index.htm
Response:
> done functional imaging studies that have demonstrated that people with > disorder X have underactivation or overactivation of particular parts of > the brain–parts that are known to respond to particular
neurotransmitters. my experience of pdocs is they first try something heavy like haleperidol to try and hammer it out of you then guess what meds you should be taking longterm, then change perscription if the patient complains.
Response:
I must be in "disagree mode". I can tell you "banhappinesspills" that the XXY brain has been studied and structural differnces have be en noted in it, and I have an XXY brain. I don’t particularly give a damn if the exact cause and reason for treatment succeeding is 100% known or 0% known, so long as I can do what I want to do without causing harm to anyone else, I’m happy. I’m sure I won’t be happy and I know I was never happy, without my personality altering medication. See I don’t care about why it works only that it works. If it didn’t work, as marijuana doen’t work and alcohol doesn’t work I wouldn’t take it, as I don’t marijuana and alcohol. Of couirse to know those don’t work I had to give them a decent trail. :-) I can be very content on ‘happy – baccy’ and ‘fire water’, but neither solves my shitty temper, piss poor outlook on life and flambouyant over the top personality, in fact they actually make these worse as I constantly needed to increase my dosage to get the required effect. On alcohol ist’s very easy to be ‘over the limit’ on a very small volume. I have been taking the ‘happypills" for over two years without needing to alter the dosage at all. — "All people are unique, only some people are a lot more unique than the rest"
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Nothing has changed in Psychiatry since Freud. They are no closer to > understanding the brain. They still have not identified a single > chemical imbalance. They are doing the equivalent of pouring dangerous > chemicals on the brain to see what happens. The studies are conducted > by the drug companies and the drugs often still don’t beat a sugar > pill. The companies can conduct study after study on a drug until they > get the result they need to satisfy FDA. > Btw, the woman almost died of infection since he did not clean the > instruments.
Response:
psychiatry is quackery. Group Health Cooperative of Puget Sound psychiatrists destroyed my life with their drugz and quack diagnosis.. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Nothing has changed in Psychiatry since Freud. They are no closer to >understanding the brain. They still have not identified a single >chemical imbalance. They are doing the equivalent of pouring dangerous >chemicals on the brain to see what happens. The studies are conducted >by the drug companies and the drugs often still don’t beat a sugar >pill. The companies can conduct study after study on a drug until they >get the result they need to satisfy FDA. >Btw, the woman almost died of infection since he did not clean the >instruments.
Response:
– DSM IV is the fabrication upon which psychiatry seeks acceptance by medicine in general. Insiders know it is more a political than scientific document. To its credit it says so –Loren R. Mosher, M.D. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Nothing has changed in Psychiatry since Freud. They are no closer to >understanding the brain. They still have not identified a single >chemical imbalance. They are doing the equivalent of pouring dangerous >chemicals on the brain to see what happens. The studies are conducted >by the drug companies and the drugs often still don’t beat a sugar >pill. The companies can conduct study after study on a drug until they >get the result they need to satisfy FDA. >Btw, the woman almost died of infection since he did not clean the >instruments. >The problem with that is modern psychiatry recognizes that as bogus. >When one does initial experimental ideas , one doesnt know if they >will hold up in the long run. But the point is , under the more formal >scientific field , ideas are tested and discarded even as flawed and >full of errors as it is. > Unfortunately people like are of the same ilk , pushing fraudulent >hokey quack natural and alternative points of view , perhaps even a >raving mad scientologist , in which you except ideas that rival Freuds >discarded theories in perpetuity , subject them to no testing and >demand absolutely no criteria for establishing their worth except on >the basis of faith in some trendy point of view now popular. Thats >the difference. >For every one freud – there must have been a million people selling >electricty , magnetism, hypnosis, natural living , diet — as a >cure-all and still do. >Be Wary of "Alternative" Health Methods >Stephen Barrett, M.D. >"Alternative medicine" has become the politically correct term for >questionable practices formerly labeled quack and fraudulent. During >the past few years, most media reports have contained no critical >evaluation and have featured the views of proponents and their >satisfied clients. >Science versus Vitalism >Science assumes that in order to develop a coherent body of knowledge, >it is necessary to assume that supernatural powers do not exist or, if >they do exist, they do not interfere. If such interference were >possible, then all attempts at controlled experimentation would be >either impossible or pointless. >Many "alternative" approaches are rooted in vitalism, the concept that >bodily functions are due to a vital principle or "life force" distinct >from the physical forces explainable by the laws of physics and >chemistry and detectable by scientific instrumentation. Practitioners >whose methods are based on vitalistic philosophy maintain that >diseases should be treated by "stimulating the body’s ability to heal >itself" rather than by "treating symptoms." Homeopaths, for example, >claim that illness is due to a disturbance of the body’s "vital >force," which they can correct with special remedies, while many >acupuncturists claim that disease is due to imbalance in the flow of >"life energy" (chi or Qi), which they can balance by twirling needles >in the skin. Many chiropractors claim to assist the body’s "Innate >Intelligence" by adjusting the patient’s spine. Naturopaths speak of >"Vis Medicatrix Naturae." Ayurvedic physicians refer to "prana." And >so on. The "energies" postulated by vitalists cannot be measured by >scientific methods. >Although vitalists often pretend to be scientific, they really reject >the scientific method with its basic assumptions of material reality, >mechanisms of cause and effect, and testability of hypotheses. They >regard personal experience, subjective judgment, and emotional >satisfaction as preferable to objectivity and hard evidence. >Some "alternative" proponents are physicians who have strayed from >scientific thought. The factors that motivate them can include >delusional thinking, misinterpretation of personal experience, >financial considerations, and pleasure derived from notoriety and/or >patient adulation. >Overclaim and Puffery >"Alternative" promoters often claim that their approach promotes >general health and is cost-effective against chronic health problems. >In a recent article, for example, the American Holistic Association’s >president claimed that various "basic healthy habits" would "tap a >well-spring of physical energy experienced as a state of relaxed >vitality." [7] In addition to exercising, eating a nutritious diet, >and getting sufficient sleep, the list includes abdominal breathing; >taking "a full complement of antioxidants and supplements; and >"enhancing the body’s ability to receive and generate bioenergy" >through regular acupuncture treatments, acupressure, healing touch, >craniosacral therapy, qigong, and several other nonstandard >modalities. As far as I know, there is no published evidence that >"alternative" practitioners are more effective than mainstream >physicians in persuading their patients to improve their lifestyle. >Nor have any vitalistic approaches been proven effective or >cost-effective against any disease. >National Council Against Health Fraud president William T. Jarvis, >Ph.D., has noted: >Some techniques referred to as "alternative" may be appropriately used >as part of the art of patient care. Relaxation techniques and massage >are examples. But procedures linked to belief systems that reject >science itself have no place in responsible medicine. Useless >procedures don’t add to the outcome, just to the overhead. >Many news reports have exaggerated the significance of the National >Institutes of Health (NIH)’s Office of Alternative Medicine (OAM). >Creation of this office was spearheaded by promoters of questionable >cancer therapies who wanted more attention paid to their methods. Most >of OAM’s advisory panel members have been promoters of "alternative" >methods, and none of its publications have criticized any method. In >1994, the OAM’s first director resigned, charging that political >interference had hampered his ability to carry out OAM’s mission in a >scientific manner [6]. The OAM has funded many studies related to >"alternative" methods. However, it remains to be seen whether such >studies will yield useful results. Even if some do, their benefit is >unlikely to outweigh the publicity bonanza given to questionable >methods. In 1998, Congress upgraded OAM into an NIH center with an >annual budget of $50 million. The agency is now called the National >Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM). >An Activist’s Observations >Rosemary Jacobs, an consumer activist who operates a Web site that >debunks colloidal silver, has made some penetrating observations with >which I agree: >"Alternative therapy" is a marketing term that should not be >permitted. All the public wants is safe, effective and efficient. They >also want objective standards of measurement used to determine what is >safe, effective and efficient. There is a general consensus as to what >those standards are among scientists and rational people for most >therapies. In other words, for most diseases and conditions, experts >know what works, what doesn’t work, what is unknown and what falls >into a gray area – - what may work but the jury is still out. >Anyone wanting to practice engineering or architecture has to abide by >objective standards. I think that anyone who wants to practice >medicine professionally should have to so too. People who believe that >personal experience is the best way to evaluate drugs and therapies >should have to identify themselves as spiritualists or New Age >religious practitioners but not as medical practitioners. They should >be forced to admit to themselves and to the world that they reject >science and objective standards, and they should never be allowed to >sell the drugs they prescribe [9].
Response:
Related Posts