--- On Tue, 5/5/09, Gabriel de Figueiredo <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Since you've asked, here some "clips":
> Note: As you probably know, Monash University is one of
> the leading universities in Australia which imparts study of
> medicine...
>
Two interesting things in these clips. First, as I suspected, Australia does
require a separate license for Chinese faith-based practices. Please see below:
"Since 1 January 2005, all medical practitioners who practise acupuncture must
be registered with the Chinese Medicine Registration Board or have their
registration endorsed by the Medical Practitioners Board of Victoria. Doctors
practising other forms of Chinese Medicine are required to be registered by the
Chinese Medicine Registration Board."
Now the more interesting quote:
"Meta-analyses on acupuncture, homoeopathy and spinal manipulation do not
provide evidence for their efficacy, apart from acupuncture for adult
postoperative and chemotherapy nausea and postoperative dental pain, and spinal
manipulation for lower-back pain. Other explanations for adoption of these
therapies by doctors must therefore be sought."
If these practices are not efficacious then why are they exhorting GPs to use
them? Is that ethical? It is also interesting that they are looking for other
explanations to justify their use, after the fact.
Would you buy a car that does not work from a used car salesman? Would you look
for other uses for such a car after being stupid enough to buy it? Perhaps, you
can use it as your makeshift home after you lose your real home on account of
bad economic decisions.
Cheers,
Santosh
