There's scepticism and cynicism, you seem to be confused between the two.. Anth
"Orac" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
newsrac-8ED5DB.12502128022004@news4-
ge1.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> In article <
[email protected]>, "Doug"
> <
[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Anth" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
news:[email protected]...
> > > I kill filed the people I did because I was sick of 10-20 topics
spamming
> > > the newsgroup all about bickering and name calling which is against
the
> > MHA
> > > charter. I seem to remember one of the very bickerers complaining once because
I
> > had
> > > included a huge post for a 1 line reply, and yet the very same person
is
> > > responsible for line after line of garbage.. As for the other comment If you notice I put OT
> > > in the subject and
> > debunking
> > > is very much a topic of MHA Why would I kill file myself, I regularly post topics which are
relevant
> > to
> > > MHA? If you see me as the enemy then that's fair enough Doug Anth
> > >
> >
> > No Anth, you are not the enemy. You do not agree with me on many things, and that does make for
> > some interesting discussion.
> >
> > As for the link you posted, I think the main problem with it is that the author does not seem to
> > be able to tell the difference between
debunking,
> > legitimate critisism, and trashing.
>
> Precisely. He lumps legitimate skepticism and questioning in with ideologically-motivated or close-
> minded trashing. He makes no distinction between the two.
>
>
> > Most of the problems that the 'debunker' crowd has with AM is that it
has
> > not gone through the type of testing that most normal medicine has.
>
> Correct. As I have said time and time again, "alt-med" should be treated exactly the same as
> conventional medicine with regards to the sort of evidence that is needed to show efficacy.
>
>
> >In addition, where it has, it often does not hold up.
>
> Also correct. One example: chelation therapy for atherosclerotic heart disease.
>
>
> >And rather than abandoning these discredited methodologies, a lot of practitioners
continue
> > as if nothing has happened.
>
> Also correct. This is a key difference between alt-med and conventional medicine. When something
> in conventional medicine is shown to be ineffective or less effective than something new,
> eventually the inferior treatment is abandoned. It may take many years for doctors to change their
> practices. Occasionally it may even take a new generation of doctors coming up through their
> training and into practice to eliminate the old treatment, but eventually the ineffective
> treatments die out.
>
> Not so alt-med, where many of the treatments today were actually shown not to be effective a very
> long time ago, but still adherents cling to them.
>
>
> > Add to all this that mixed in with legitimate AM practitioners is a fair number of quacks, and
> > these quacks do need a thorough debunking as a
public
> > duty.
>
> The other problem is that the legitimate AM practitioners rarely denounce the quacks. Indeed, they
> often defend the quacks.
>
> [Snip]
>
> --
> Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
> |
> |"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you inconvenience me with questions?"