Like religion, there is nothing wrong with people believing in AltMed, and I will fight for anyones right to believe in what they want. People should have the freedom of choice, however this must be balanced with the risk to the vulnerable and gullible. AltMed, in theory, isn't without risk if people avoid mainstream medicine in favour of something that's mostly never been demonstrated to work and has no plausible mechanism to work. It must be remembered that AltMed requires faith as the vast majority is unprovable. Scientific explanation requires evidence, and AltMed is "belief" in something DESPITE evidence.
Religion and AltMed only get in my way when people are harmed as result of it. The Alties love their theatrics and like to make out like we want to ban AltMed.....they are misinformed. The main problem with AltMed is that at the moment, there is little or no regulation in this multi billion dollar industry. There are little or no standards as to quality control, efficacy or safety. Standards need to be set so that AltMed is monitored, and those who do actually harm people with so called "safe and natural" practices are prosecuted. Another problem with AltMed is that many practitioners also denigrate mainstream medicine as a routine part of their marketing and basically spread misinformation and lies about conventional medicine and this puts peoples health at risk.
And consider the fallacies, lets take a look at Bob's answer for example, "...Its been around centuries before conventional medicine was created"
This is the appeal to tradition fallacy, assuming something works or is correct simply because it's been around for many years. This does not follow. Science left AltMed behind because it did not stand up to scrutiny.
Bob also makes out that AltMed treats the cause of the illness and conventional medicine is profit driven and is only interested in treating the symptoms of disease. Conventional medicine does have it's limitations, however what Bob neglects to mention is that AltMed has never actually been demonstrated to treat the cause OR the symptoms of any specific disease entity. And he's wrong about conventional medicine. Where we can treat the cause of disease, we do. Where we can't we aim to relieve pain and suffering by managing symptoms and improving quality of life, this does not mean we do not keep looking for a cause or have no wish to find one. AltMed is also a multi billion dollar industry. The alties do not provide their services free of charge.
Bob also mentions nutrition and this is a cornerstone of AltMed quackery. The alties often think that once nutritional balance is restored, the body will be able to heal itself of whatever disease it has. There are two reasons why the quacks like to use this concept: 1. By claiming that the product they sell promotes the bodies' natural ability to heal itself, it avoids the need for FDA approval which would require products to have demonstrated evidence of efficacy to scientifically show that something works. 2. The appeal to emotion, by convincing the consumer that the body has the ability to heal itself without the need for any medical intervention is emotionally satisfying. It is philosophical, and not based on modern science. Now our body can fight infection and disease without help in some instances, but our bodies become less efficient as we get older. Diseases are very complex, only a minority of diseases are of nutritional origin. Certain nutritional deficiencies may exacerbated symptoms, but to suggest all disease can be cured by nutrition alone, as so many of them do, is a composition fallacy.
@ Lighty: You missed the point of that comment. My comment about alties not providing their services free of charge was actually in response to Bobs comment..here, "Conventional medicine is profit orientated". As I've stated on here, just because someone stands to make money from something is irrelevant as to whether or not something actually works and the alties charge for their practices too.
@ Kill your TV: Not even wrong. A common line on most quack websites is that, "research shows 75 per cent of Doctors would refuse any chemotherapy"
Of course, few actually provide a source for this statement. Of the few that do give a source, it's usually an excerpt from a book by Philip Day: "Several full-time scientists at the McGill Cancer Center sent to 118 doctors, all experts on lung cancer, a questionnaire to determine the level of trust they had in the therapies they were applying; they were asked to imagine that they themselves had contracted the disease and which of the six current experimental therapies they would choose. 79 doctors answered, 64 of them said that they would not consent to undergo any treatment containing cis-platinum – one of the common chemotherapy drugs they used – while 58 out of 79 believed that all the experimental therapies above were not accepted because of the ineffectiveness and the elevated level of toxicity of chemotherapy.” (Philip Day, “Cancer: Why we’re still dying to know the truth”, Credence Publications, 2000)
Now, Phillips interperetation of that survery is not correct. The survey was NOT about all available therapies for lung cancer or cancer in general, but about a new drug called cisplatin, which was developed for a specific kind of lung cancer. The 1985 survey found that only one-third of physicians and oncology nurses would have agreed to chemotherapy for this specific type of cancer.
A follow-up survery was done, which included about 300 people 64.5% of oncologists said that they would have chemotherapy, as did 67% of nurses. Also bear in mind this study was many years ago, chemo and cancer survival rates in general have improved. I bet if we repeated that survery, the uptake would be even higher.
Facts, only facts.... Stop lying please. The way you quacks manipulate data should be criminal.
oops, Sorry lo_mcg, I didn't see your edit. You've already beaten me to it. Great minds, etc.