What is Quackery?



In article <[email protected]>,
"Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > You could have picked a lot better examples than chelation.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's a perfectly fine example. Chelation therapy has never been
> shown
> > to
> > > > > be effective for atherosclerotic disease. There has yet to be a good
> > > > > randomized study that shows its efficacy in this. The one randomized
> > > > > trial that reported a positive result was done was very small (only
> > ten
> > > > > patients), and the investigators never followed up on it, to the
> best
> > of
> > > > > my knowledge. Since then, there have been at least four randomized
> > > > > studies, none of which showed a treatment effect and (more
> > importantly)
> > > > > none of which showed objective evidence that chelation therapy
> reduces
> > > > > the size of atherosclerotic plaques (a key claim by chelation
> therapy
> > > > > advocates that even they have had to back away from in the last
> couple
> > > > > of years--in favor of various handwaving "explanations" about how
> > > > > chelation therapy "works"). The very best thing that can be said
> about
> > > > > chelation therapy is that it is unproven. As such, responsible
> > medicine
> > > > > dictates that it should not be used as a treatment for
> atherosclerotic
> > > > > heart disease or peripheral vascular disease outside of a clinical
> > > > > trial. (Note that it is known to be effective for acute heavy metal
> > > > > poisoning; using chelation for this particular indication is not
> > > > > quackery.)
> > > > >
> > > > > FYI, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
> > > > > recently started accruing patients for a double-blinded,
> > > > > placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial that should
> (hopefully)
> > > > > answer the question once and for all. I have no problem with this
> > study,
> > > > > but, knowing how alties almost never give up on a therapy no matter
> > how
> > > > > much evidence shows it to be ineffective, I predict that, even if
> the
> > > > > trial conclusively shows no benefit, alties will still be pushing
> > > > > chelation therapy years after I've passed on. (Indeed, even if there
> > > > > were dozens of well-designed studies showing that chelation therapy
> > > > > didn't work, I'd predict that alties would keep pushing it.) In
> > > > > contrast, I predict that, if the study shows that it has some
> > efficacy,
> > > > > conventional cardiologists will start to adopt it. Therein lies one
> > > > > difference between quacks and conventional doctors.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Your last point is the issue: no one is looking to see if it
> > effective
> > > > or not.
> > >
> > > Wrong, George. I just made it a point to tell you that there is
> > > presently a large randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled
> > > clinical trial supported by the NIH looking at chelation therapy for
> > > atherosclerotic heart disease. I rather suspect that it will show no
> > > benefit, but if it does show a definite benefit I again predict that
> > > cardiologists will start to adopt it. I also suspect that, if it does
> > > show a benefit, it will probably be small. (If it produced a large
> > > benefit, chances are the benefit would have been observed in the smaller
> > > randomized studies that have already been done.)
> > >
> >
> > And how long has this study been delayed? 45-50 years, right?
>
> There were previous studies which showed no benefit. This study, using mor
> emodern testing will, hopefully, answer the question.
>
> Yes, I am not holding my breath.

Indeed. Chelation therapy was studied on and off for a long time.
Remember, I said it was only in the last 15 years or so that randomized
blinded studies were done with placebo controls. All of them save one
have shown no benefit, and the one that purported to show a benefit was
a tiny study (10 patients) that its investigators never followed up on.

One thing's for sure: If chelation was truly as beneficial as its
proponents claimed, chances are that the studies that have already been
done would have shown it. My guess is that, if there is any benefit
found at all (which is rather unlikely) it will be quite small.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
>Subject: Re: What is Quackery?
>From: Peter Bowditch [email protected]
>Date: 11/11/2003 1:52 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>Orac <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>> Just thought that you might want to know about chemo's failures. :)
>>
>>No one ever claimed it was 100% successful. I have yet to see an altie
>>produce evidence, however, that shows his favorite "alternative"
>>treatment is MORE successful.
>
>The word "MORE" is redundant. I just want to see any evidence of
>success other than anecdotes and testimonials.

Another lie.

You have already seen, as I have posted them previously.

http://nccam.nih.gov/clinicaltrials/

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Healthology/sept11HS_508939Alternati
veCancerTreatments020910.html

Many Cancer Patients Turn to Alternative Medicine
From HealthScoutNews

— TUESDAY, Sept. 10 (HealthScoutNews)-- More than 70 percent of adult cancer
patients in western Washington use alternative therapies, and almost all report
improvements in well-being as a result, a new study shows.




Related Webcasts
• The Growing Popularity of Alternative Medicine, Part 1
• The Growing Popularity of Alternative Medicine, Part 2
• Can Needles Heal?
• Acupuncture: Can Needles Heal?
• Homeopathy: Helping Your Body Heal Itself

The research, the first population-based study of its kind to look at
predictors, motivators and costs of different types of alternative medicine use
in adults with cancer, was conducted by the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research
Center. The findings were published in yesterday's issue of The Journal of
Alternative and Complementary Medicine.

Researcher Ruth E. Patterson and her colleagues at Fred Hutchinson's Public
Health Sciences Division led the study, which was supported by grants from the
National Cancer Institute and funds from Fred Hutchinson.

"This is the first study to specifically inquire about patients' attitudes
regarding the effectiveness of alternative treatments," Patterson says.

Patients were considered users of alternative medicine if they received care
from an alternative provider within the past year or had used at least one
alternative supplement or therapy.

Depending on the type of therapy, 83 percent to 97 percent of patients surveyed
said they used alternative medicine for general health, and nearly all reported
that use of these therapies improved their well-being.

A smaller number of those surveyed, between 8 percent and 56 percent, turned to
alternative interventions to actually treat their cancer.

The most common form of alternative treatment was the use of dietary
supplements, which were taken by 65 percent of the patients, many of whom used
several such products simultaneously.

Cancer type also appeared to influence alternative therapy use: for example,
those with breast cancer were significantly more likely to see alternative
providers or take dietary supplements than were colon cancer patients

"Since most therapies were used to enhance overall health and well-being, it
seems unlikely that patients would substitute these therapies for conventional
medicine," Patterson says.

But, she adds, "doctors should be wary of discounting alternative medicine,
given that the majority of patients overwhelmingly feel it improves their
quality of life.

" The survey was based on telephone interviews with 356 adults who had been
diagnosed with breast, prostate or colon cancer between February 1997 and
December 1998. The group was divided equally among men and women, with equal
representation among the three types of cancer.

One limitation to the study, Patterson notes, is that use of alternative
medicine could be high in western Washington for a variety of reasons.

First, vitamin use is highest in the western United States compared to other
areas of the nation. Also, health insurers in Washington are required by state
law to provide coverage for licensed alternative providers.

"Regardless of incidence of alternative medicine use in Washington, other
studies also indicate that alternative medicine use is common in patients with
cancer," Patterson adds.

More information The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine
has more information.

http://www.heall.com/body/altmed/future/growthofaltmed.html

http://www.alternativedr.com/news.html

http://www.mdanderson.org/departments/cimer/

http://www.cancerdecisions.com/beatcancer_frm.html

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/living/Healthology/sept11HS_508939Alternati
veCancerTreatments020910.html#

Jan
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Hospices are not meant to "save." They are meant to keep a person with a
>terminal disease (usually, but not always, cancer) comfortable and allow
>them to die with dignity.

Something that chemotherapy and conventional medicine does not.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> You can not claim that medicine cures while alternative medicine kills
>> in these majority of cases.

>Alternative medicine does not cure in these cases, either.

I shall repeat for the benefit of the intellectually challenged on
these ngs.

You can not claim that medicine cures while alternative medicine kills
in these majority of cases.
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>They use their degrees to gain a
>measure of respect that run-of-the-mill quacks like Hulda Clark can
>never achieve.

Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Alan Turley
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>Without discussing the appropriate treatment for mononucleosis, which
>looks like no more than the straw man you're hiding behind right now,
>when a physician provides appropriate palliative care in the absence
>of a more corrective therapeutic option, this is not fraud.

>Again, your question does not add value or validity to your espoused
>position. However, this is foreseeable in view of your track record.

Again, your question does not add value or validity to your espoused
position. However, this is foreseeable in view of your track record.
--
John Gohde,
Achieving good Nutrition is an Art, NOT a Science!

Get started on improving your personal health and fitness, today.
http://www.Tutorials.NaturalHealthPerspective.com/
Offering easy to understand lessons that will change your life.
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

Obviously you Guys got your noses so far up in the air that you can
not even read what is written on your screen. :(

I get more of a response talking to the wall, than from you Geeks!

"... you have my sympathies"
Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN.
 
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 04:45:40 GMT, John wrote:

>Again, your question does not add value or validity to your espoused
>position. However, this is foreseeable in view of your track record.

Once again, John, you demonstrate the intellectual capacity of any
given minah bird, repeating my words back for lack of a substantive
contribution of your own -- typical of your contributions here and
elsewhere, little more than witless plagiarism.

Have you found this sort of intellectual indolence to be persuasive
among adults? I should not expect that it would earn you more than
contempt.

@~
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Alan Turley
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>>Again, your question does not add value or validity to your espoused
>>position. However, this is foreseeable in view of your track record.
>
>Once again, John, you demonstrate the intellectual capacity of any
>given minah bird, repeating my words back for lack of a substantive
>contribution of your own -- typical of your contributions here and
>elsewhere, little more than witless plagiarism.
>
>Have you found this sort of intellectual indolence to be persuasive
>among adults? I should not expect that it would earn you more than
>contempt.

Again, your comments don't add value or validity to your espoused
position. However, this is foreseeable in view of your track record
of being publicly stupid.

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
On Wed, 12 Nov 2003 05:47:24 GMT, John wrote:

>Again, your comments don't add value or validity to your espoused
>position. However, this is foreseeable in view of your track record
>of being publicly stupid.

Ouch, you got me there, John. And, though you may lack the intellect
or imagination to carry a rational thought to its logical conclusion,
at least you're redundant.

To tell the truth, I must hand it to you; your grammar, punctuation,
and overall diction are markedly improved so long as you restrict your
writing to CTRL-C and CTRL-V. You've a firm grip on the fundamentals.

So, how about if you just chalk this one up as a win, and go home?
You've demonstrated the full range of your powers to trounce old
science geeks in this thread. I'm sure that we will not soon forget
the dazzling display of raw brain power that you've shown here today.

@~
 
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > Correct, although I do not necessarily reserve the label of "quack"
only
> > > for those who knowingly push useless treatments. There is a variety of
> > > quack who is a true believer in his own particular useless treatment.
> > > They are just as dangerous (perhaps more so) than the quack who
> > > intentionally pushes useless treatments.
> >
> > The history of established medicine is full of treatments pushed
which
> > have been proven later to be harmful, useless or simply expensive.
>
> Ah, but therein lies the difference, George. When such treatments are
> shown to be useless or harmful, they are eventually abandoned by
> conventional medicine.

Too bad politics doesn't work that way. Liberals still push the same old
policies decades after they've been proven to be unmitigated disasters
(public education, welfare, no thinning of forests, soft on crime, etc.) and
refuse to change programs on the brink of bankruptcy (Medicare, Social
Security).

On second thought, for a liberal these treatments ARE useful - they get them
elected and reelected. It's as if the only measure for medical utility were
whether it made money for the provider (even if the patient dies).

That's Political Quackery.
 
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Anneke Andriessen
> rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >> Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's complementary
> >> medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine. What is
> >> considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.
>
> >I wonder what part of the Ebers papyrus still is regular medicine? This
is
> >one of the first medical documents (1500BC) which has some 700
> >pharmaceutical formulas. Then there is the Smith papyrus. You can hardly
> >take on board several millenia of structural attempts to heal or cure to
set
> >it all in a context of quackery. I am not aware that the contents of
either
> >papyrus has been evaluated with regards to what we know today.
>
> My beef is that there are plenty of areas where alternative medicine
> has been proven to be effective by science over and over again.
>
> This concept bounces off the average science geek like water off a
> duck. They keep on attacking areas that don't work, while totally
> ignoring the very public Quackery taking place in conventional
> medicine today.

I just get silly by the notion that people think they need alternative or
regular medicine while physically a patient has so much cure imbedded in
their own system. You may try alternatives for comfort or palliative care.
Regular could be overperscribed. But without it I'd shudder at the
death-rate.

Anneke
 
In article <[email protected]>,
John 'the Man' <[email protected]> wrote:

> Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
> rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> Obviously you Guys got your noses so far up in the air that you can
> not even read what is written on your screen. :(
>
> I get more of a response talking to the wall, than from you Geeks!

What's the matter? Unhappy that your trolls aren't getting more of a
response?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
 
"John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
> rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> >Hospices are not meant to "save." They are meant to keep a person with a
> >terminal disease (usually, but not always, cancer) comfortable and allow
> >them to die with dignity.
>
> Something that chemotherapy and conventional medicine does not.
>
> Just thought that you might want to know. :)

You do you "think" runs hospices? Alties? Nope. The 'customers' are not
repeaters.
 
"John 'the Man'" who suffers from severe recto-crania, wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Once upon a time, our fellow Orac
> rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
> Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...
>
> Obviously you Guys got your noses so far up in the air that you can
> not even read what is written on your screen. :(
>
> I get more of a response talking to the wall, than from you Geeks!

At least we are air breathers.
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Marko Proberto
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>> Something that chemotherapy and conventional medicine does not.
>>
>> Just thought that you might want to know. :)
>
>You do you "think" runs hospices? Alties? Nope.

Entrepreneurs who know how to milk medicare and the insurance system
for all it is worth.

Who do you think runs hospitals? The physicians? Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

Just thought that you might want to know. :)
 
Once upon a time, our fellow Alan Turley
rambled on about "Re: What is Quackery?."
Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ...

>So, how about if you just chalk this one up as a win, and go home?

It is not much of a challenge to expose Science, Ha, ... Hah, Ha!,
Geeks for what they are: Second class academics!!!

Just my opinion. But, I am *right* as usual!
 
"Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:eek:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
>
> > > > > Like water fluoridation...?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Water flouridation is a highly successful program. Are you a
quack?
> > >
> > > He's probably one of those anti-fluoridation types--in other words, a
> > > pro-quack apologist.
> >
> > And you are just an asshole.
>
> Tsk, tsk. Touchy, touchy. Can't take the heat? Then don't jump into the
> kitchen.
>
Oh no..not another 'manners maketh man' type asshole too !

--
Ho hum
Jez
"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that
society must somehow make sense. The thought
that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so
many innocent people is intolerable. And so the
evidence has to be internally denied."
- Arthur Miller
 
"Marko Proberto" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > "George Conklin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Jez" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > >
> > > > > "Orac" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > news:eek:[email protected]...
> > > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > > > "Jeff" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > "John 'the Man'" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Quackery was yesterdays alternative medicine, is today's
> > > > complementary
> > > > > > > > medicine, and will be tomorrow's new branch of medicine.
What
> > is
> > > > > > > > considered Quackery is purely a matter of politics.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No, what is quackery is a matter of science. If the available
> > science
> > > > > does
> > > > > > > not support it, it is quackery. Like chiropractic, naturopathy
> and
> > > > > > > homeopathy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Correct. It never ceases to amuse me when these alties pull the
> old
> > > > > > "what is quackery is all politics" whine (which they do
> frequently).
> > > > > > With only a few exceptions, it's just not true. Quackery is
> > unproven,
> > > > > > unsafe, or demonstrably ineffective treatment being pushed as
> > effective
> > > > > > treatment.
> > > > >
> > > > > Like water fluoridation...?
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Water flouridation is a highly successful program. Are you a quac
k?
> > >
> > > He's probably one of those anti-fluoridation types--in other words, a
> > > pro-quack apologist.
> >
> > And you are just an asshole.
>
> Please do not post such self-referential statements.

Mmm difficulty reading eh?

--
Ho hum
Jez
"Few of us can easily surrender our belief that
society must somehow make sense. The thought
that the State has lost its mind and is punishing so
many innocent people is intolerable. And so the
evidence has to be internally denied."
- Arthur Miller
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back