"Just a response:" :)
A quick response to your response >Scientific "types"? Are you being Jungian or merely stereotypical? Stereotypical of course. But not merely. There is some truth in them thar stereotypes >I believe the proper phrasing might be that people who realize that >knowledge is tentative and subject to revision as new facts are obtained >are unwilling to accept claims that have little objective evidence obtained >by standard methods (e.g., double-blind plecebo-control experimental >designs) behind them but which promise results that are too good to be true, >will be skeptical of the claims of "alternative medicine" unless they have be >shown, through standard methods, to actually produce an benefit over and >beyond that produced by placebo. Eh…yeah...like I said, they don't condone it. >If the decisions that a person only affects that person, then maybe, I emphasize >maybe, your position is tenable. The problem is that unless a person is a >hermit and has no contact other people, their medical decisions will affect >others. The hermit would also have to be rich, so that foolish medical choices >which result in increased illness do not affect either health insurance premiums >and the costs of running hospitals and other components of the health system. I think the article was more about someone in the hospital getting proper medical treatment plus some mumbo-jumbo. Not that the mumbo-jumbo was replacing the treatment. I think this is probably the most common pursuit of alternate therapies. With regard to cost: I think health insurance premiums are primarily increased not by people wanting alternative medicine (for which they have to pay), but by people making choices on lifestyles which condone things like sedentary lifestyle, smoking, drinking, getting obese, taking unnecessary risks, and the weanies that go to the emergency department every time they have a cough, etc. It's these choices that are primarily affecting others by increased illness etc. >Of course, the best example of why one needs to be wise with their medical >treatment is because a number of illnesses are transmittable. Sexually >transmitted diseases (STDs) affect about 19 million people in the U.S. each >year (that is, new cases) and most people have no clue about how to deal them. Again, I think most people who look to alternative medical treatments are not make an "either or choice" but an "in addition to" choice. >Even HIV/AIDS which has garnered so much attention over the past few >decades is subject to misunderstanding and claims for "cures" for AIDS are >still promoted, for example see: A person who goes for a "natural cure" for AIDS and continues to be >sexually active is a risk not only to themselves but to others as well. Ah, yes. The standard AIDS/Cancer response. Little more than fear mongering. There is no "standard" cure for aids either. Being sexually active with any active STD is irresponsible regardless of the treatment one is seeking. >If "alternative medicine" provides benefits equivalent to placebo, wouldn't it be >better to determine what makes for the most effective and cheapest placebo? >That is, if we're not really serious about understanding the disease process, >how to best treat it, and related issues. No. It would be better to give the patient the placebo of their choice. --Mike --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([email protected])
