|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
United States43505 Posts
On April 14 2016 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:25 Velr wrote:On April 14 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote:On April 14 2016 02:07 Nyxisto wrote:
the point is your sister is ripping people off, naturopathy isn't a thing A stradivarius violin sounds identical to any well made violin of similar quality, but people still prize them as sounding richer and deep than other violins. It takes a special level of arrogance to pontificate on a treatment that someone else considers valuable. considering something valuable is not the same as it being working or valuable. Your Stradivari argument falls flat, because stradivaris work and much of the "nature" medicine stuff just does nothing (not everything probably, or it makes you feel better... But if it would be half as good as it "fans" make it out to be, it would be "medecine"). Sometimes people take it over actual medicine and die for their "evaluation". What if they don’t want to take any medical because they don’t want to fight any more? Or the treatment is to harsh and they don’t want to go through it again and seek out alternative treatment? Once again, it takes a special level of arrogance to dictate how someone else should deal with their crippling disease. The same level of arrogance that leads people dictate who can fuck who and when.
So limit their claims, the same way we do with actual medicine. The FDA isn't allowed to investigate the veracity of the claims of alternative medicine. Pseudoscientific "medicine" kills people.
|
On April 14 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:07 Nyxisto wrote:
the point is your sister is ripping people off, naturopathy isn't a thing A stradivarius violin sounds identical to any well made violin of similar quality, but people still prize them as sounding richer and deep than other violins. It takes a special level of arrogance to pontificate on a treatment that someone else considers valuable.
Well you can consider it all you want but besides some mild placebo all your consideration isn't going to do you any good if you're sick. The advantage of actual medicine is that it also happens to work if you don't believe in it.
This also isn't some abstract philosophical thing, people are dying because they're listening to charlatans and withholding treatment, as mentioned in the case above even from their children. I don't care about violins because violins aren't actually causing anybody harm. If we can save even five kids because we ban the people from practicing quackery absolutely nothing of value will be lost
|
On April 14 2016 02:33 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:30 Plansix wrote:On April 14 2016 02:25 Velr wrote:On April 14 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote:On April 14 2016 02:07 Nyxisto wrote:
the point is your sister is ripping people off, naturopathy isn't a thing A stradivarius violin sounds identical to any well made violin of similar quality, but people still prize them as sounding richer and deep than other violins. It takes a special level of arrogance to pontificate on a treatment that someone else considers valuable. considering something valuable is not the same as it being working or valuable. Your Stradivari argument falls flat, because stradivaris work and much of the "nature" medicine stuff just does nothing (not everything probably, or it makes you feel better... But if it would be half as good as it "fans" make it out to be, it would be "medecine"). Sometimes people take it over actual medicine and die for their "evaluation". What if they don’t want to take any medical because they don’t want to fight any more? Or the treatment is to harsh and they don’t want to go through it again and seek out alternative treatment? Once again, it takes a special level of arrogance to dictate how someone else should deal with their crippling disease. The same level of arrogance that leads people dictate who can fuck who and when. No one here argues that a person cannot give up, or want to try something different. What we argue is people claiming "this will cure X" when that is unproven and using it to con people out of money.
We have laws against fraud and deceptive practices like that and people go to jail if it’s total bullshit. The issue is that the FDA and medical industry are just that, an industry. So the theory that all treatments, standard and alternative, are assessed on merit alone is inaccurate. There could be a perfectly viable alternative treatment out there for a nerve disorder that will face unfeasible levels of rigor just because it encroaches on someone existing market.
So I agree that things should be tested, but the idea that they are all tested equally is simply not reality.
|
Ha, the good old evidence-based medicine vs alternative medicine debate. About as uninteresting as ever.
|
On April 14 2016 02:28 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:28 oBlade wrote:
There is no financial incentive in our systems to do research about whether eating a certain leaf gives you personally marginally more comfortable bowel movements. And rightly so - it would usually be a waste of professional time and resources. That's why hands-off is good. Is it okay if someone does yoga but not chiropractic or acupuncture? I can eat a bunch of tangerines but not buy some kind of ground extract? As long as people aren't selling poison as a cure, the FDA is serving its purpose.
Obviously nobody likes the Deepak Chopras of the world, and you can't cure cancer with homeopathy (or water as I call it). But beyond that there are huge grey areas and it's not usually public business whether someone cracks their knuckles in an attempt to feel better. The opacity of medical information relative to consumer decision making counsels otherwise.
Oh, of course, I see, that certainly makes sense. 
On April 14 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:28 oBlade wrote:
There is no financial incentive in our systems to do research about whether eating a certain leaf gives you personally marginally more comfortable bowel movements. And rightly so - it would usually be a waste of professional time and resources. That's why hands-off is good. Is it okay if someone does yoga but not chiropractic or acupuncture? I can eat a bunch of tangerines but not buy some kind of ground extract? As long as people aren't selling poison as a cure, the FDA is serving its purpose.
Obviously nobody likes the Deepak Chopras of the world, and you can't cure cancer with homeopathy (or water as I call it). But beyond that there are huge grey areas and it's not usually public business whether someone cracks their knuckles in an attempt to feel better. Incidentally the FDA isn't allowed to check whether something is poison or not until it starts killing people. There have been numerous instances of dangerous health supplements being marketed, poisoning a bunch of people and then, after a lengthy battle, being taken off the market. Actual medicine isn't perfect but nutrition supplements and alternative medicine manage to occupy a regulatory sweet spot where it's nobody's job to police it's neither medicine nor food.
The same thing happens to FDA-approved drugs and people sue regularly.
I think that's what we want in a free society. If we don't want cigarettes to be a controlled substance, I don't see how saw palmetto capsules ought to be one.
|
On April 13 2016 18:12 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 13 2016 06:49 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 13 2016 06:29 Nebuchad wrote:On April 13 2016 06:00 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 13 2016 05:07 Nebuchad wrote:On April 13 2016 04:33 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 13 2016 03:10 Nebuchad wrote:On April 13 2016 03:04 Naracs_Duc wrote:On April 13 2016 02:48 Nebuchad wrote:On April 13 2016 02:35 Naracs_Duc wrote:
[quote]
So trying to make an argument that social democrat is centrist in some random country in the EU is irrelevant to the discussion. If you don't agree with the international definition of what is moderate and what isn't, how can you then with a straight face say that you're against extremism? A moderate is someone who stands for moderate principles on a predetermined scale, not on a scale that he made up himself based on what he believes. If you want to argue that you're scared of the left, based on the experience that you had with it, that is a legitimate position and a legitimate concern. But do not present it as a moderate stance. When you think that a situation where you get to choose between center right and far right every four years is better than a situation where you choose between center left and center right because there's too much risk that we could run into far left situations in the latter, then you don't have an anti-extremist stance. And you should be able to realize that. The US has definitions of what counts as left, right, and center. Just because it is different from the EU or Japan or Ethiopia does not make it an invalid metric. You are correct. What makes it an invalid metric isn't that it's different from the EU. It's that its positions are [right wing](republicans) - [left wing](democrat), [far left] (social democracy), [very far left?] (doesn't exist, a socialist position), [very very very far left?] (doesn't exist, communism). You can tell it's invalid because extreme positions are situated just one degree right of center on one side, while the extreme positions of the other side are situated a million degrees left of center. That's not even how the American political positions break down. On the far far left is perceived as something akin to benevolent totalitarianism--a system where the government provides most if not all the support and resources to its people. On the far far right is something akin to neo-feudalism, an extreme form of anarchism where smaller communities become self run states that does not require federal controls. In the middle of that are the moderates. Democrats are to the left of that, republicans are to the right of that--but barely. Its more accurate to think of it as Moderate, DINO, Moderate Democrat, Fiscal Conservative/Socially Liberal Democrat, Democrat, Left Leaning Democrat, and so on and so forth with communist being far into it, and many other beyond communist past that. To the right its very similar between neocons, conservatives, GOPs, Tea Party, RINOs, Socially Liberal Republicans, Goldwater Republicans, Reaganites, Christian Right Republicans, Fascists, etc... America has a very WIDE and very DEEP definition of what counts as liberal and what counts as conservative bred as much by how one perceives the other as much as it is bred by what bills each side passes. When "2nd Amendment Nutjobs" talk about the government taking their guns--its literally because they see the left as being not being very far off from becoming totalitarian regimes. They look at us and think we are the crazy ones. So its definitely a lot more nuanced than you are pretending it to be with a lot more layers than you are really wanting to accept. And EVEN THEN it still is not relevant to the discussion of taking the experiences of people who come from countries who tested socialist changes more honestly instead of more selectively. To discuss and understand why it goes bad in some places, and why it goes well in others. To not pretend you already know how it will conclude in the US just because you think "It can't happen here in the US." Every country who has been punished by their experiments with social programs thought that "we are different" that the mistakes of others could not possibly happen to them. It is foolish to only look at the evidence that suites you and not to the evidence available. And trying to shift the discussion to what counts as liberal or conservative is asinine. If you find it foolish I would advise against doing it yourself, considering I'm the one with the international definition of moderate and you're the one who wants to ignore it based on the premise that America has it right against everyone in the world just because. I didn't name all of those denominations not because I refuse to accept them but because many of them do not constitute a layer in themselves. Notice how I didn't separate democrats either, when I could have. The fact that you can name different groups of republicans and not all of them are as extreme as each other doesn't magically make it so that you reach extreme on the right at the same time as you reach extreme on the left, when you need one layer that barely exists in Bernie and two layers that don't exist at all to reach extreme on the left, and you already are at extreme on the right without even leaving the republican layer (unless you don't think the Tea Party is far right?). It is just plain fascinating to me that you're okay arguing against something so clear. I never said that the US has it right. I said that the US is different from Spain and that the US is different from China. That what counts as conservative in spain might be seen as liberal in china and might be seen as moderate in America. For the most part, it doesn't matter what other countries count as liberal or conservative since they're not the ones voting for things in America. So please stop bringing it up. Here is the core of the conversation and what started it. There are countries who have been successful with more socialist leaning policies and countries who have failed because of socialist leaning policies. As such, if a candidate in America suggests a socialist leaning policy it is important to look at both the failed attempts at socialist policies and the successful implementation of socialist leaning policies--because we can't assume that just because it worked in Sweden means it will work in the US. Why can't we? Because the US is not Sweden. Now you coming here and telling me that the EU is more left wing than the US tells us NOTHING about that core argument and is just a smoke screen to allow you to stall without joining the conversation. You've said that your position is one of antifundamentalism, or antiextremism. Bernie is only extreme or fundamentalist when you start from the messed up center that the US has, so by definition, when you oppose him and quote antifundamentalism, you're accepting the american model. You can't have it both ways. Either you consider that the US has it right, and that Bernie is an extremist, in which case you are incorrect as I was demonstrating here, or you consider that Bernie is not an extremist but it's still more dangerous to have him in a system than it is to have republicans, in which case you aren't really against fundamentalism, you're against anything left. Which, I stress again, is a valid position in my book. You just need to know that you have it. " As such, if a candidate in America suggests a socialist leaning policy it is important to look at both the failed attempts at socialist policies and the successful implementation of socialist leaning policies" This has already been addressed a whole lot. All socialist attempts are not equal. The reason why Bernie gets compared to Northern Europe more than he gets compared to China is because his policy content looks more like Northern Europe than it looks like China. It's really not very sophisticated. However, saying that, Bernie has absolutely no reason to be part of this discussion. This is about being honest that simply pointing out the anecdotes that work is not evidence, it is dishonesty. You should always treat your own ideas with the same amount of caution and expectations as you treat your opponent's ideas. That is all. Silencing people by telling them their experiences don't matter because only Swedish experiences matter is just awful. All right, I give up. If you're still going to write things like these at this stage, you clearly aren't willing to read anything that is being argued against you. I don't see the point of talking to someone like that.
I have responded to point by point with everything you have brought up and showed why its irrelevant to the core discussion. If you had wanted to stop talking about the initial topic you should have just said so, but trying to take a discussion about the experiences of others when it comes to social programs and making it be about whether you think Bernie is a moderate because of random politicians in the EU is completely out of base.
|
United States43505 Posts
On April 14 2016 02:40 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:33 Gorsameth wrote:On April 14 2016 02:30 Plansix wrote:On April 14 2016 02:25 Velr wrote:On April 14 2016 02:18 Plansix wrote:On April 14 2016 02:07 Nyxisto wrote:
the point is your sister is ripping people off, naturopathy isn't a thing A stradivarius violin sounds identical to any well made violin of similar quality, but people still prize them as sounding richer and deep than other violins. It takes a special level of arrogance to pontificate on a treatment that someone else considers valuable. considering something valuable is not the same as it being working or valuable. Your Stradivari argument falls flat, because stradivaris work and much of the "nature" medicine stuff just does nothing (not everything probably, or it makes you feel better... But if it would be half as good as it "fans" make it out to be, it would be "medecine"). Sometimes people take it over actual medicine and die for their "evaluation". What if they don’t want to take any medical because they don’t want to fight any more? Or the treatment is to harsh and they don’t want to go through it again and seek out alternative treatment? Once again, it takes a special level of arrogance to dictate how someone else should deal with their crippling disease. The same level of arrogance that leads people dictate who can fuck who and when. No one here argues that a person cannot give up, or want to try something different. What we argue is people claiming "this will cure X" when that is unproven and using it to con people out of money. We have laws against fraud and deceptive practices like that and people go to jail if it’s total bullshit. The issue is that the FDA and medical industry are just that, an industry. So the theory that all treatments, standard and alternative, are assessed on merit alone is inaccurate. There could be a perfectly viable alternative treatment out there for a nerve disorder that will face unfeasible levels of rigor just because it encroaches on someone existing market. So I agree that things should be tested, but the idea that they are all tested equally is simply not reality.
The argument that you need a perfect standard in order to have any standard is absurd. You're right that there are huge issues with the medical industry. There is, for example, no requirement to report the results of trials which means that if a drug shows promise in a minority of trials then it can still be published with just those trials while not mentioning the others in which it performs no better than the control. But the system not being perfect is no reason to allow an entire industry to continue their exploitative and immoral businesses. Hell, you might as well say that the existence of unsolved crimes means it's not worth making anything illegal.
The laws against fraud and deceptive practices do not meaningfully apply to the alternative healthcare industry. They should but lobbying is big bucks and Americans sure do love their freedom.
Seriously, if this were anything else and someone was claiming that a perfect standard was required before we improved any standard at all you'd call them out on it.
|
On April 14 2016 02:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:28 farvacola wrote:On April 14 2016 02:28 oBlade wrote:
There is no financial incentive in our systems to do research about whether eating a certain leaf gives you personally marginally more comfortable bowel movements. And rightly so - it would usually be a waste of professional time and resources. That's why hands-off is good. Is it okay if someone does yoga but not chiropractic or acupuncture? I can eat a bunch of tangerines but not buy some kind of ground extract? As long as people aren't selling poison as a cure, the FDA is serving its purpose.
Obviously nobody likes the Deepak Chopras of the world, and you can't cure cancer with homeopathy (or water as I call it). But beyond that there are huge grey areas and it's not usually public business whether someone cracks their knuckles in an attempt to feel better. The opacity of medical information relative to consumer decision making counsels otherwise. Oh, of course, I see, that certainly makes sense. Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 02:28 oBlade wrote:
There is no financial incentive in our systems to do research about whether eating a certain leaf gives you personally marginally more comfortable bowel movements. And rightly so - it would usually be a waste of professional time and resources. That's why hands-off is good. Is it okay if someone does yoga but not chiropractic or acupuncture? I can eat a bunch of tangerines but not buy some kind of ground extract? As long as people aren't selling poison as a cure, the FDA is serving its purpose.
Obviously nobody likes the Deepak Chopras of the world, and you can't cure cancer with homeopathy (or water as I call it). But beyond that there are huge grey areas and it's not usually public business whether someone cracks their knuckles in an attempt to feel better. Incidentally the FDA isn't allowed to check whether something is poison or not until it starts killing people. There have been numerous instances of dangerous health supplements being marketed, poisoning a bunch of people and then, after a lengthy battle, being taken off the market. Actual medicine isn't perfect but nutrition supplements and alternative medicine manage to occupy a regulatory sweet spot where it's nobody's job to police it's neither medicine nor food. The same thing happens to FDA-approved drugs and people sue regularly. I think that's what we want in a free society. If we don't want cigarettes to be a controlled substance, I don't see how saw palmetto capsules ought to be one.
Cigarettes are not allowed to make false medical claims, that's the difference.
|
On April 14 2016 02:44 OtherWorld wrote:
Ha, the good old evidence-based medicine vs alternative medicine debate. About as uninteresting as ever.
Its all vague arguments without context or nuance, vague claims of deaths and are likely half true, all mixed with a healthy level of arrogance to dictate how others should deal with their problems.
But if there is anything I have learned on TL is that math problems and science vs “something that isn’t science” getting people fired up. Because this place is filled with tech/science nerds.
|
United States43505 Posts
On April 14 2016 02:44 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:28 farvacola wrote:On April 14 2016 02:28 oBlade wrote:
There is no financial incentive in our systems to do research about whether eating a certain leaf gives you personally marginally more comfortable bowel movements. And rightly so - it would usually be a waste of professional time and resources. That's why hands-off is good. Is it okay if someone does yoga but not chiropractic or acupuncture? I can eat a bunch of tangerines but not buy some kind of ground extract? As long as people aren't selling poison as a cure, the FDA is serving its purpose.
Obviously nobody likes the Deepak Chopras of the world, and you can't cure cancer with homeopathy (or water as I call it). But beyond that there are huge grey areas and it's not usually public business whether someone cracks their knuckles in an attempt to feel better. The opacity of medical information relative to consumer decision making counsels otherwise. Oh, of course, I see, that certainly makes sense. Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 02:28 oBlade wrote:
There is no financial incentive in our systems to do research about whether eating a certain leaf gives you personally marginally more comfortable bowel movements. And rightly so - it would usually be a waste of professional time and resources. That's why hands-off is good. Is it okay if someone does yoga but not chiropractic or acupuncture? I can eat a bunch of tangerines but not buy some kind of ground extract? As long as people aren't selling poison as a cure, the FDA is serving its purpose.
Obviously nobody likes the Deepak Chopras of the world, and you can't cure cancer with homeopathy (or water as I call it). But beyond that there are huge grey areas and it's not usually public business whether someone cracks their knuckles in an attempt to feel better. Incidentally the FDA isn't allowed to check whether something is poison or not until it starts killing people. There have been numerous instances of dangerous health supplements being marketed, poisoning a bunch of people and then, after a lengthy battle, being taken off the market. Actual medicine isn't perfect but nutrition supplements and alternative medicine manage to occupy a regulatory sweet spot where it's nobody's job to police it's neither medicine nor food. The same thing happens to FDA-approved drugs and people sue regularly. I think that's what we want in a free society. If we don't want cigarettes to be a controlled substance, I don't see how saw palmetto capsules ought to be one.
But we did intervene and tell the cigarette companies they could no longer market the health benefits of cigarettes. Cigarettes are an example of the ideal solution. People still buy them but they no longer buy them for relief for their sinus problems or to cure asthma.
|
It's worth noting that socializing the healthcare industry would remove a great deal of consumer incentive that necessarily underpins the success of the supplemental/alternative health good market. I think folks are mistaken if they're under the impression that all or even most of the consumers of supplements and/or alternative medical treatments do so out of a good faith belief that they are superior to traditional medicine. When going to a real doctor amounts to (or seems to amount to) a dice roll potentially linked to a massive price tag, going with the route that doesn't include going to see a real doctor seems all the more attractive.
|
On April 14 2016 02:18 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 01:58 travis wrote:
Good, I am glad he supports alternative medicine. Fuck people who think they know everything, and science doesn't even shut down a lot of what alternative medicine has to offer at the moment. But this is an argument that has been had on this website a thousand times and every time it involves a bunch of people throwing up strawmen and ripping them apart.
Furthermore, what science says doesn't really mean jack shit in the face of results. My sister is a naturopathic doctor and the results she gets from many of her treatments (particularly acupuncture) really make what science says irrelevant, because results are results. Does she have an MD?
I don't think so.
|
United States43505 Posts
On April 14 2016 02:59 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:18 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 01:58 travis wrote:
Good, I am glad he supports alternative medicine. Fuck people who think they know everything, and science doesn't even shut down a lot of what alternative medicine has to offer at the moment. But this is an argument that has been had on this website a thousand times and every time it involves a bunch of people throwing up strawmen and ripping them apart.
Furthermore, what science says doesn't really mean jack shit in the face of results. My sister is a naturopathic doctor and the results she gets from many of her treatments (particularly acupuncture) really make what science says irrelevant, because results are results. Does she have an MD? I don't think so.
But you called her a naturopathic doctor? Does she tell people she's a doctor when they come to her with medical complaints?
|
On April 14 2016 03:02 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:59 travis wrote:On April 14 2016 02:18 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 01:58 travis wrote:
Good, I am glad he supports alternative medicine. Fuck people who think they know everything, and science doesn't even shut down a lot of what alternative medicine has to offer at the moment. But this is an argument that has been had on this website a thousand times and every time it involves a bunch of people throwing up strawmen and ripping them apart.
Furthermore, what science says doesn't really mean jack shit in the face of results. My sister is a naturopathic doctor and the results she gets from many of her treatments (particularly acupuncture) really make what science says irrelevant, because results are results. Does she have an MD? I don't think so. But you called her a naturopathic doctor? Does she tell people she's a doctor when they come to her with medical complaints?
"Naturopathic Doctor" is an official, protected designation in some places.
|
United States43505 Posts
On April 14 2016 03:04 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 03:02 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 02:59 travis wrote:On April 14 2016 02:18 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 01:58 travis wrote:
Good, I am glad he supports alternative medicine. Fuck people who think they know everything, and science doesn't even shut down a lot of what alternative medicine has to offer at the moment. But this is an argument that has been had on this website a thousand times and every time it involves a bunch of people throwing up strawmen and ripping them apart.
Furthermore, what science says doesn't really mean jack shit in the face of results. My sister is a naturopathic doctor and the results she gets from many of her treatments (particularly acupuncture) really make what science says irrelevant, because results are results. Does she have an MD? I don't think so. But you called her a naturopathic doctor? Does she tell people she's a doctor when they come to her with medical complaints? "Naturopathic Doctor" is an official, protected designation in some places.
But a ND does not have a MD and yet, apparently, can exploit the huge amount of social capital the MD field has built up over a century of performing actual medicine. If I were to create a new designation and call myself a doctor and then encourage people to pay me for doing the things a doctor does then the fact that when they think doctor they're thinking about someone with a MD, which I don't have, wouldn't handicap me. But it probably should.
Hell, at least make them wear badges that say "I don't have a MD".
|
Sadly, there are state recognized licensure provisions for NDs in 17 states, which is yet another reason why claims that state governments are better suited to protecting the health and welfare of citizens are suspect.
|
On April 14 2016 02:50 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:44 oBlade wrote:On April 14 2016 02:28 farvacola wrote:On April 14 2016 02:28 oBlade wrote:
There is no financial incentive in our systems to do research about whether eating a certain leaf gives you personally marginally more comfortable bowel movements. And rightly so - it would usually be a waste of professional time and resources. That's why hands-off is good. Is it okay if someone does yoga but not chiropractic or acupuncture? I can eat a bunch of tangerines but not buy some kind of ground extract? As long as people aren't selling poison as a cure, the FDA is serving its purpose.
Obviously nobody likes the Deepak Chopras of the world, and you can't cure cancer with homeopathy (or water as I call it). But beyond that there are huge grey areas and it's not usually public business whether someone cracks their knuckles in an attempt to feel better. The opacity of medical information relative to consumer decision making counsels otherwise. Oh, of course, I see, that certainly makes sense. On April 14 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 02:28 oBlade wrote:
There is no financial incentive in our systems to do research about whether eating a certain leaf gives you personally marginally more comfortable bowel movements. And rightly so - it would usually be a waste of professional time and resources. That's why hands-off is good. Is it okay if someone does yoga but not chiropractic or acupuncture? I can eat a bunch of tangerines but not buy some kind of ground extract? As long as people aren't selling poison as a cure, the FDA is serving its purpose.
Obviously nobody likes the Deepak Chopras of the world, and you can't cure cancer with homeopathy (or water as I call it). But beyond that there are huge grey areas and it's not usually public business whether someone cracks their knuckles in an attempt to feel better. Incidentally the FDA isn't allowed to check whether something is poison or not until it starts killing people. There have been numerous instances of dangerous health supplements being marketed, poisoning a bunch of people and then, after a lengthy battle, being taken off the market. Actual medicine isn't perfect but nutrition supplements and alternative medicine manage to occupy a regulatory sweet spot where it's nobody's job to police it's neither medicine nor food. The same thing happens to FDA-approved drugs and people sue regularly. I think that's what we want in a free society. If we don't want cigarettes to be a controlled substance, I don't see how saw palmetto capsules ought to be one. Cigarettes are not allowed to make false medical claims, that's the difference.
If you followed my posts, I already took a brave stand against claims that homeopathy is a valid cancer treatment. What I'm interested in isn't so much patently false claims and miracle cures (in fact almost anyone who uses the word "cure" immediately reveals themselves), those are obvious, it's the generally harmless no man's land.
On April 14 2016 02:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 02:44 oBlade wrote:On April 14 2016 02:28 farvacola wrote:On April 14 2016 02:28 oBlade wrote:
There is no financial incentive in our systems to do research about whether eating a certain leaf gives you personally marginally more comfortable bowel movements. And rightly so - it would usually be a waste of professional time and resources. That's why hands-off is good. Is it okay if someone does yoga but not chiropractic or acupuncture? I can eat a bunch of tangerines but not buy some kind of ground extract? As long as people aren't selling poison as a cure, the FDA is serving its purpose.
Obviously nobody likes the Deepak Chopras of the world, and you can't cure cancer with homeopathy (or water as I call it). But beyond that there are huge grey areas and it's not usually public business whether someone cracks their knuckles in an attempt to feel better. The opacity of medical information relative to consumer decision making counsels otherwise. Oh, of course, I see, that certainly makes sense. On April 14 2016 02:32 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 02:28 oBlade wrote:
There is no financial incentive in our systems to do research about whether eating a certain leaf gives you personally marginally more comfortable bowel movements. And rightly so - it would usually be a waste of professional time and resources. That's why hands-off is good. Is it okay if someone does yoga but not chiropractic or acupuncture? I can eat a bunch of tangerines but not buy some kind of ground extract? As long as people aren't selling poison as a cure, the FDA is serving its purpose.
Obviously nobody likes the Deepak Chopras of the world, and you can't cure cancer with homeopathy (or water as I call it). But beyond that there are huge grey areas and it's not usually public business whether someone cracks their knuckles in an attempt to feel better. Incidentally the FDA isn't allowed to check whether something is poison or not until it starts killing people. There have been numerous instances of dangerous health supplements being marketed, poisoning a bunch of people and then, after a lengthy battle, being taken off the market. Actual medicine isn't perfect but nutrition supplements and alternative medicine manage to occupy a regulatory sweet spot where it's nobody's job to police it's neither medicine nor food. The same thing happens to FDA-approved drugs and people sue regularly. I think that's what we want in a free society. If we don't want cigarettes to be a controlled substance, I don't see how saw palmetto capsules ought to be one. But we did intervene and tell the cigarette companies they could no longer market the health benefits of cigarettes. Cigarettes are an example of the ideal solution. People still buy them but they no longer buy them for relief for their sinus problems or to cure asthma.
Well, most of what we're talking about I think doesn't have a recreational overlap like cigarettes do, and in the case of cigarettes, they were introduced first and later we figured out how they can actually hurt people. Is that how you want to do it, or what do you think? Cigarettes are probably a special case in terms of the combination of ubiquitous and harmful.
|
United States43505 Posts
Like sure, maybe you can call yourself a doctor and charge people to talk to you but you sure as hell shouldn't be able to.
Hell, if I called myself a priest and had people confessing their sins to me under a false assumption of confidence there would be an issue there. Priests have built up a degree of social capital and by leading people to falsely believe that I was one of them I would not only be exploiting that misunderstanding for personal gain but also be damaging the reputation of the institution I was impersonating.
|
On April 14 2016 03:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 03:04 OtherWorld wrote:On April 14 2016 03:02 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 02:59 travis wrote:On April 14 2016 02:18 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 01:58 travis wrote:
Good, I am glad he supports alternative medicine. Fuck people who think they know everything, and science doesn't even shut down a lot of what alternative medicine has to offer at the moment. But this is an argument that has been had on this website a thousand times and every time it involves a bunch of people throwing up strawmen and ripping them apart.
Furthermore, what science says doesn't really mean jack shit in the face of results. My sister is a naturopathic doctor and the results she gets from many of her treatments (particularly acupuncture) really make what science says irrelevant, because results are results. Does she have an MD? I don't think so. But you called her a naturopathic doctor? Does she tell people she's a doctor when they come to her with medical complaints? "Naturopathic Doctor" is an official, protected designation in some places. But a ND does not have a MD and yet, apparently, can exploit the huge amount of social capital the MD field has built up over a century of performing actual medicine. If I were to create a new designation and call myself a doctor and then encourage people to pay me for doing the things a doctor does then the fact that when they think doctor they're thinking about someone with a MD, which I don't have, wouldn't handicap me. But it probably should. Hell, at least make them wear badges that say "I don't have a MD".
Hmm, I dunno. I think that someone who goes to a ND knows very well what he's doing, because he'll be usually part of one of these categories : either he'll go to a ND as a complement of a EBM-approved treatment, or he'll go to a ND because he hates EBM, hospitals and stuff, and feels that he's doing a "rebellious" act by going the alternative route. Thus in both case the customer knows that he's not going to a regular MD, thus the ND does not exploit the MD's social capital.
Now if your ND actually acts as a doctor, or pretends to have formal MD education, or does things that legally belong to the medical profession, then it's another case. He's doing illegal stuff (at least illegal in France, "Unauthorized practice of medicine"), and he's an outlaw as such.
|
United States43505 Posts
On April 14 2016 03:18 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2016 03:08 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 03:04 OtherWorld wrote:On April 14 2016 03:02 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 02:59 travis wrote:On April 14 2016 02:18 KwarK wrote:On April 14 2016 01:58 travis wrote:
Good, I am glad he supports alternative medicine. Fuck people who think they know everything, and science doesn't even shut down a lot of what alternative medicine has to offer at the moment. But this is an argument that has been had on this website a thousand times and every time it involves a bunch of people throwing up strawmen and ripping them apart.
Furthermore, what science says doesn't really mean jack shit in the face of results. My sister is a naturopathic doctor and the results she gets from many of her treatments (particularly acupuncture) really make what science says irrelevant, because results are results. Does she have an MD? I don't think so. But you called her a naturopathic doctor? Does she tell people she's a doctor when they come to her with medical complaints? "Naturopathic Doctor" is an official, protected designation in some places. But a ND does not have a MD and yet, apparently, can exploit the huge amount of social capital the MD field has built up over a century of performing actual medicine. If I were to create a new designation and call myself a doctor and then encourage people to pay me for doing the things a doctor does then the fact that when they think doctor they're thinking about someone with a MD, which I don't have, wouldn't handicap me. But it probably should. Hell, at least make them wear badges that say "I don't have a MD". Hmm, I dunno. I think that someone who goes to a ND knows very well what he's doing, because he'll be usually part of one of these categories : either he'll go to a ND as a complement of a EBM-approved treatment, or he'll go to a ND because he hates EBM, hospitals and stuff, and feels that he's doing a "rebellious" act by going the alternative route. Thus in both case the customer knows that he's not going to a regular MD, thus the ND does not exploit the MD's social capital. Now if your ND actually acts as a doctor, or pretends to have formal MD education, or does things that legally belong to the medical profession, then it's another case. He's doing illegal stuff (at least illegal in France, "Unauthorized practice of medicine"), and he's an outlaw as such.
I'm actually somewhat tempted to make an appointment with a ND and see now. But I think you underestimate human stupidity. With a white coat, a smart office and telling people you're a doctor I think a lot of people will confuse you with an actual doctor.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
