Posted as a public service: just because it is called "alternative" does not make it safe or effective.
www.whatstheharm.net/
www.whatstheharm.net/
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Sun, July 6, 2008 - 6:14 AM -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Sun, July 6, 2008 - 11:45 AMI'm all for rationality and evidence-based belief systems, but I think quackwatch takes it to the extreme. In their world, birds can't really fly because we only have anecdotal evidence that they do, and no large double-blind studies to *prove* it. -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Sun, July 6, 2008 - 11:52 AMThis also is rough for butterflies and bats.
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Sun, July 6, 2008 - 12:08 PMi'm curious to know how rationality can be taken to the extreme.
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Sun, July 6, 2008 - 12:32 PMI don't think Quack Watch would deny that birds fly because there is not a double blind test. People observe birds in flight every day so no such test is needed. Quack Watch and others have done numerous double blind studies on things like Homeopathy and all of those studes show that homeopathy does no good what-so-ever. The fact that people say they were helped by a homeopath is just anecdotal evidence that proves nothing. I think Quack Watch has done some very good public service by exposing those who prey on people who are sick. They have done a great job in exposing the charlatans who deny hiv/aids and those who do great harm by telling people to avoid effective treatement by telling us not to use the very medicines that can prolong life. I'll take scientific medicine over a "natural healer" any day. -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Sun, July 6, 2008 - 5:05 PMThere are a number of criticisms of quackwatch in particular online, so I won't repeat them in detail here other than to say the gist of them is that quackwatch points out faults and scams within natural medicine (a good thing), but neglects to point out any of the faults and scams that exist within establishment medicine. Given that establishment medicine causes, through error if not on purpose, more deaths than natural medicine does, I would say this is a significant lapse.
I wholeheartedly agree that there is no scientific basis nor proof that modalities like homepathy work -- that there is no proof but only anecdotal evidence is a simple scientific fact. However, to quote from another website:
"Why is there no review of Vioxx on quackwatch? Why is there no mention on quackwatch.org of the worthless cold and cough medicines sold by pharmaceutical companies and drug stores? Hundreds of millions of dollars are wasted each year by consumers on these worthless and potentially harmful decongestants and cough syrups. Why is there no mention on quackwatch of the dangers of acetaminophen use, including liver damage?"
You say that QW does a good service by exposing those who prey on the sick. To that I'd say that a lot of people out there feel that those who prey on the sick are the very people practicing establishment medicine: the pharmaceutical companies with their stockholder's mandate's that they be profitable, and the doctors who receive their assorted kickbacks. Not the majority by any means, but they do exist to a significant degree. But QW's view, and one that I'm sure they'd love everyone to subscribe to, is that MD's can do no wrong. -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Mon, July 7, 2008 - 6:09 AMIm totally not making fun of the website you posted, I just find humor in some of the things on that website. Some of the "What's the harm" stories are really funny. Funny because they have an odd skew on things. Ie; A scientist gets fired for believing in creationism.
To me the harm would be in discrimination not in creationism.
Thats like saying, jeff and joe are at a bonfire and joe trips jeff and he falls in the fire.. beware of people named joe...
I find it funny, but I also see some neat things on that site that I bookmarked to go back to -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Mon, July 7, 2008 - 6:36 AMThe scientist was fired because the poisiton he was hired for requires a belief in evolution as part of the job discription. It would be like somebody who gets hired to work on AIDS reasearch who believes that hiv/aids is divine punishment for sinful living. In both cases they have the right to their beliefs, but not if those beliefs run counter to the purpose of the position they were hired to fill. If creationism is given equal time in schools then we should also give equal consideration to the idea that babies are delivered by storks. Evolution is a fact. Creationism is a religious belief.
-
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Mon, July 7, 2008 - 9:45 AMright, but what Im saying is I dont see how that fits under the catergory of harmful.. the moral of the story is dont lie on your resume, not dont believe in creationism
-
Creationism -- What's The Harm?
Tue, July 8, 2008 - 7:28 AMIf one wants to believe personally in creationism, that may not be grounds for firing, but if one
teaches it as science, rather than a personal religious belief, then that's professional malpractice
for a science teacher.
And what about the Flying Spaghetti Monster??
-
-
-
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Mon, July 7, 2008 - 1:14 PMI know from my own experience and that of others that homeopathy DOES work... with or without a "double-blind" study; ths is as clear to me as the fact that birds fly. It's not that "rationality" is wrong, but our mind's clinging to it can get in the way of healing that does not fit into that box. Homeopathy is not rational based on the ideas of cause and effect that our minds have been taught to operate on. If someone wants to exclude homeopathy as an option for healing, I support that, but I will fight for my right to choose the appropriate healing modality for me, whether or not someone else finds it rational. When one finds oneself sick with something that defies the laws of rationality as set forth by the medical establishment and then refuses appropriate supposedly "irrational" treatment, we'll see who ends up the more foolish in the end. But it's not my business how someone else chooses to bring healing to themselves, and nor should my choices be anyone else's. -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Mon, July 7, 2008 - 1:40 PMIn the double blind studies on homeopathy some subjects were given plain water and some were given a homeopathic preperation. Some of those who got the plain water reported that they got good reslults. The same number of good results were reported by those who got homeopathic products. Consumers should always have a choice and sites like Quack Watch and What's the Harm can help people make an informed choice.
Part of the problem with Rx medications is that the oversight and regulation is done by agencies whose members come from (and later return) to the very industry they are suppose to monitor. The regulators should be totally independent. The same sort of independent regulation should apply to so called alternative medicines. Because they are called alternative they should not be given some special place that frees them from regulation. If they want to be taken seriously they should have no problem with objective testing of their claims and safety. -
-
Homeopathic dilutions = water
Tue, July 8, 2008 - 4:33 PMWell, if you look at how the homeopaths make their dilutions, and follow the rules of chemistry,
(knowing nothing much more than Avogadro's number)
then it
is extremely unlikely that there is even one molecule of the supposed active substance in it, so
since one is therefore comparing water with water and would expect to get the same result.
-
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Mon, July 7, 2008 - 2:26 PMI agree Buffy, somewhere, at some point in time, medications had to start from somewhere. We didnt have a bunch of chemicals laying around. People found that certain plants could heal certain things, and then it evolved into medications. Chiropractics, Psychology and Massage Therapy are now all widely accepted as treatments for medical conditions, even fifty years ago you wouldnt see these as common practices. :-) -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Mon, July 7, 2008 - 2:31 PM"There... are.... four... lights!"
-
-
-
-
An old canard about birds and bees flights
Tue, July 8, 2008 - 1:24 AMActually, aerodynamicists can model and predict how birds and bumblebees fly. It is
is only by some oversimplified elementary models that don't include some of the important physics where that
anomalous result is obtained.
( I used to work for NASA and Boeing in computational fluid dynamics) -
-
Re: An old canard about birds and bees flights
Tue, July 8, 2008 - 6:06 AM -
-
Re: An old canard about birds and bees flights
Tue, July 8, 2008 - 3:47 PMis anyone familiar with www.snopes.com ? debunk those myths!
-
Re: An old canard about birds and bees flights
Tue, July 8, 2008 - 3:58 PMFine, Apostate... continue your tirade against homeopathy. I'll continue to support it, as will thousands of others around the globe who have actually experienced its benefits. The studies you cite -- Who funded them? How were they conducted? Were there qualified homeopaths involved with the prescribing?Homeopathy is not a simple medicine. If you get the wrong remedy nothing happens. But show me anyone who's taken the proper potency of Arnica before and after surgery that hasn't had less inflamation and bruising and a much faster healing process. Working at a store that sells homeopathic remedies, II have experience with their effectiveness on a daily basis.
Most studies debunking homeopathy and other "alternative" treatments are funded or indirectly supported by drug companies and medical establishment professionals who fear that people will begin choosing these treatments, most of which do not have side effects, and from which these companies and individuals will not utlimately profit. Very few valid studies are actually performed because the money isn't there for them.
This link shows how most studies of homeopathy are flawed, due to untrained and incompetent practitioners:
altmedicine.about.com/od/alte...opat.htm
And here's a description of a few of the many studies that found homeopathy helpful, even against life-threatening illness:
www.holisticonline.com/Homeop...cal.htm
So, I would suggest more extensive research that goes beyond myth-debunking websites with tongue-in-cheek axes to grind. -
-
Re: An old canard about birds and bees flights
Wed, July 9, 2008 - 4:26 AMHere is one link to some studies on homeopathy. This one comes from The Speptic's Dictionary which has lots of valuable information on other forms of quackery and nonsense.
www.skepdic.com/homeo.html
-
-
Re: An old canard about birds and bees flights
Wed, July 9, 2008 - 4:57 AMHere is another link that provides a skeptical view of various topics. This one is the James Randi Educational Foundation. They have a standing 1million dollar challenge. They will award 1 million dollars to anybody who can prove they have supernatural abilities.
James Randi (aka The Amazing Randi) helped to expose Uri Geller as a fraud and con artist. Randi advised the late Johnny Carson when Geller appeared on the Tonight Show during the 1980's Geller was unable to do his parlor tricks when his props were not staged the way he wanted. The clip of this event is available on Randi's web site. Geller has attempted to supress the video clip, but has found that to be as impossible as bending a spoon with will power.
www.randi.org/
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Thu, July 10, 2008 - 12:09 AMThe American Academy of Pediatrics is now recommending that cholesterol lowering drugs be given to children as young as eight. Don't bother to teach them (or their parents) to eat right and exercise, just give them drugs. But this is hardly surprising as medical school students typically don't take more than one course in nutrition throughout their education, and it's not like the local farmers market is sending doctors to conferences in Hawaii in exchange for prescribing more salad.
When you have a science-based, supposedly rational medical industry offering highly questionable remedies, is it any wonder that people are flocking in droves to alternative remedies? (Quackwatch of course has a bunch of 'exposes' on nutritionally oriented healers.)
The school of medical thought that Quackwatch represents is old school medicine. Surgery, radiation, and drugs are the answer. There's big money in surgery, radiation, and drugs, and so that's where all the focus is. Anything that is not surgery, radiation or drugs is suspect because they're a financial threat to Big Medicine's hegemony. And Big Medicine uses any means it can to delegitimize and outlaw anything that is not surgery, radiation or drugs. Quackwatch, whether consciously or not, is one of Big Medicine's propaganda arms.
Surgery, radiation, and drugs is what MDs are for the most part taught, and so this is what they espouse, and it's also what a lot of the public believes. But there has always been alternative medicine, and more and more MDs are incorporating these modalities into their practice, at least on the west coast. But the political climate in this country is such that they dare not be too vocal about it lest they run afoul of the old guard. -
-
Cholesterol
Thu, July 10, 2008 - 5:21 AM... elevation is not exclusively due to diet; about 80% of it is produced in the liver. I went on a very strict diet about
25 years ago, and the numbers went.... up so they prescribed a med which has controlled it since then.
Diet is a first line of defense, but if that doesn't work, then maybe a med could be appropriate.
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Thu, July 10, 2008 - 5:25 AMTo me "old school medicine" is that which asks the patient to rely on merely the word of the local healer. Old school medicine rejects even the most basic science like the fact that germs cause disease. Denial of that basic fact is a common theme for many alternative forms of medicine. I dismiss out of hand any "healer" who preaches such nonsense.
Quackwatch tries to distinguish between what works and what does not work. Claims made about natural remedies should be put to the test. Why should anyone just take somebody's word for it? I agree that modern medicine has become a profit driven industry, but no more so than the alternative medicine industry. The intentions of so called natural healers are no more pure than the intentions of big medicine.
What ever defects there are in the oversight of the drug industry they are required to test their claims before the drugs are sold to the public. The alternative medical establishment screams bloody murder when any regulation is proposed. Why do they fear having claims for their products tested? Why should they get a free pass? Just because they say it is a "natural organic product?
I am all for people having a choice about which form of medicine they seek. Quackwatch can help them make an informed choice. It pays to be an informed consumer and when it comes to your health it is best to not just take somebody's word for it. That is an old schoold concept. -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Thu, July 10, 2008 - 6:33 AMThe harm is one medicine that is made for one may not be the same for another. One may take this and be well another one may take it and they can be sick, and some times even end up dead. Just as the medical society looks at everyone as being equal which obviously we are not, the medicines that are given to everyone are given as we are equal which is causing many others to get sick or develop other conditions all from taking a medicine made the general people who ever they may be. I don't believe that medicine is the answer completely as there are too many out there and the doctors are being pushed to perscribe certain medicines all the time from the drug companies, their bosses etc. I know this to be fact! I've seen it, I've heared it.
Alternative medicines do work however just like medicines made by these companies what works for one my not work for another. If you have an illness and can't eat gluten then you know to look at ones diet. Medically they will take you off all food, leave you in the hospital for 2 weeks, giving you all kinds of med, and then starting you back on food with a bullion cube = gluten. Start the whole process over again and change things around. Your left with a large bill.
Alternative medicines if you go to a good practioner listens to what you say, can run test of there own with your body and be able to tell you what is going on. Then can help you as an individual not just as a normal adverage joe as the medical practice does. However one must understand I said a good practioner who listens for there are a lot out there who don't know what they are doing, just like with doctors. If you don't believe that try working at UNM and listen to what the doctors are saying and watch what they are doing. It's a miracle no one has a law suit on them, which for the life of me I can't still understand why in some cases. Oh well another story.
All I'm saying is that healing someone is not the same as giving them an asprin and telling them they will be better, that's not always true. For some giving them water will make them better all though you may tell them it is something ese. Doctors do this all the time. The medical field has never wanted to share their wealth with anyone. It took a long time for chiropractors to be utilized by doctors and yet still there are thousands of doctors who think that chiropractors are usless. So for one to call anyone who is helping others healing in the way that the one needs healing a fraud or other names. I think you need to stop and ask what are you doing to help them. Right nothing except putting them down for finding a way where they were able to get help, the type that they needed for them.
Fine so you don't believe in it, thats your choice, however millions do, and millions are being helped and even healed. Some to the point where doctors and others are studing what or how this happened. The medical feild is strarting to look and see Reiki, Massage, Chiropractors, Herbalist, etc. all as something to help the medical community and individuals who are sick.
I feel like once again all the world is doing is trying to split us all up. There is enough hate, judgement and other negative things keeping us all apart in the world. It's time we stop and start looking at what we are doing, and see what we are doing. To not only speak but to hear how you are speaking and listen to what you are saying. Many do not speak their truth they speak a truth they were taught most don't even know what there truth is. It's time we stop and grow, listen to what we are saying, living what we say for most don't either.
We need to come together in harmony, love, communication and supporting one another for who they are and for who we are if we are going to surive and be happy.
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Fri, July 11, 2008 - 4:38 PMUnfortunately, Quack Watch is as guilty of spreading misinformation to the consumer as they are valid information. Alternative medicine often doesn't fit into the narrow boxes that the tests are designed for. It's a narrow way of thinking about health. Conventional medicine is in control, so they set up the parameters for the testing, which by its nature is designed to exclude anything that doesn't fit into its own box. Do you think they're all that concerned about the welfare of people who seek out alternatives? They're concerned about profit loss, because some of them ARE effective treatments. If the treatments didn't work, what would they have to fear? People would try them and when they failed, they'd come running back to conventional medicine. They protest too much, and it reveals their own fears.
Personally, I think there's a middle ground. If I truly needed surgery for something, I wouldn't take a homeopathic remedy instead. But when someone who recommends a homeopathic to someone can be sued for practising medicine without a licence, there's something wrong with the picture. It goes beyond informing the public and into controlling them... which, on so many levels, I think we've seen enough of. -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Fri, July 11, 2008 - 5:45 PMThe tests are the same tests used with conventional medicine. The rules are not changed when testing alternative medicine. Yes I think they are concerned with the welfare of people who seek alternatives. Who funds them? People like myself who donate thru pay pal. That they cause snake oil peddlers some profit brings me joy. If even one person avoids a quack and gets real medical treatment it is money well spent. Happily thousands of people avoid alternative to medicine and get real medical help thanks to Quack Watch. Modern medicine has saved more lives than all other forms of medicine combined over all of history. And it has not even been around that long. May the Goddess Bless western medicine. -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Fri, July 11, 2008 - 9:43 PMI think you've made your point. -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Sat, July 12, 2008 - 5:42 PMStill, it has been enjoyable getting to see the word "Quack" written out so many times in this thread. Who couldn't love the word "Quack"?
Duck is Good Medicine! -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Sat, July 12, 2008 - 6:44 PMDoes a duck's quack echo?
www.snopes.com/critters/wild/duckecho.asp
"Why a duck, why not a goose?"
Chico Marx
-
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Sat, July 12, 2008 - 11:02 PMWhen the Pope shits in the forest, does he make a sound? -
-
This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.
Re: What's The Harm?
Sun, July 13, 2008 - 12:20 PMAnd to stay on topic, Is there any harm done if he does? Make a sound while shitting in the forest that is.
Yes, the discussion's been charming... thanks to all who chimed in.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Mon, July 28, 2008 - 8:49 AMFor me, the question is who funds quackwatch?
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Mon, July 28, 2008 - 8:50 AMPosted as a public service: just because it is called "modern" does not make it safe or effective -
-
Re: What's The Harm?
Mon, July 28, 2008 - 9:07 AMI stated before that people like myself fund Quackwatch by making donations thru Pay Pal. I wonder why people object to services like Quackwatch? They simply test the various claims made by people who sell questionable products or services. I hope we never return to the day when we take the word snake oil peddlers at face value. Way back in the bad old days a healer would place a bug in his mouth and then tell his patient that he just sucked the bug out of the patients body. This was done as a way to gain the confidence of the patient and to make him believe in the non-existant powers of the healer. Thank the Goddess we no longer have to depend on such theaterics.
I agree that just because it is called "modern" does not make it safe and effective. One shouild be an informed consumer and look into the product or service being offered. No more or no less should be done for alternative medicine. The alternative medicine industry is just as much of a profit driven industry as AMA approved medicine. Although the monitoring and regulation of of Big Pharm has become a joke (the fox is guarding the hen house) Big Alternative wants no regulation at all. That is why I promote sites like Quackwatch and donate to efforts that will bring regulation to Big Alternative.
-