--- On Thu, 5/28/09, Gilbert Lawrence <[email protected]> wrote: > > If scientific (expensive) medicines can use the placebo effect > as the studies show, why would not the same pathways apply > to / be used by Ayurveda, homeopathy, alternative > medicines, nutraceuticals, etc.? > Date: Thu, 28 May 2009 21:13:08 -0700 (PDT) From: Santosh Helekar <[email protected]>
I have no idea what the first part of the above question means. Any properly scientifically tested and validated medicine approved for ethical use, by definition, has to be more effective than a placebo, irrespective whether it is expensive or inexpensive. Alternative rituals that have not been tested for safety and efficacy in randomized placebo-controlled trials are by the same token of questionable utility. Mario adds: I continue to be amazed by the misconceptions being persistently proposed by some registered medical practitioners, who should know better. Even I know that placebos, by definition, have no "pathways" that any knowledgeable medical practitioner can "use" or know what to do with in treating a patient. This would be like giving them a bottle of colored water and asking them to take one tablespoon three times a day - the color only meant to make the beverage seem like a medicine. Now, if the beverage were feni, then we may have something useful:-)) The real question is why "...Ayurveda, homeopathy, alternative medicines, nutraceuticals" etc. cannot be tested in head-to-head blind studies against placebos just like every allopathic medication has to go through before being approved for widespread use by the competent authorities. After all, most of these have been around long enough. The prescribing physician knows within a narrow range the probability of effectiveness of an allopathic medication and this information comes from the studies. They also know the possible side effects and how the medication may conflict with or be enhanced by other medications the patient may be taking. I suspect the reason is that the sellers and manufacturers and proponents of alternative treatments cannot afford to put these to objective testing because we may find out that they are useless, which would put millions of "snake oil" salesmen and women out of business. Many allopathic medications, too, fail such tests and no one will ever hear of those in the marketplace. On the other hand, the occasional "alternative treatment" does pass muster when tested. I know Santosh will correct me if I'm wrong but I once heard of an extensive study in Britain which found that chiropractic performed better than orthopedics in treating back pain due to spinal problems. In the meantime the gullible who are fooled into "believing" that these "alternative" concoctions or procedures work pay the price and take their chances with what is essentially gambling with their health.
