Something Thats Been Bugging Me

Sapien

johnsix wrote: »

Wow, that's condescending.
You're making quite a lot of assumptions.

Am I? There's a lot of that going about, I suppose.

maninasia

I work in the pharma field. I was previously very skeptical about Chinese medicine but having personally seen the effectiveness of some treatments I have changed my mind. Not only that, many of the active ingredients are under investigation as possible drug agents at this time. Of course not all treatments work and some of it is hearsay and placebo effect but there are quite a lot of treatments that work, it's no surprise since they use 1000s of different herbs in Chinese medicine. A very famous anti-malarial drug, artemisin, is from a root in China. Chinese medicine is very difficult to do a controlled blind study in the way that western medicine insists (single drug agent at one time or at most 3-4, plus you need to use the pure substance only and in precisely controlled amounts).
I pride myself in scientific thinking, I am an atheist and yet I'm aware of the fact that we can't just write off an area just because the people promoting that area are often cranks and moneygrabbers or because it doesn't follow exactly the same processes we are used to. In my experience many GPs do not use scientific or rational judgements either, rather they will promote a drug according to their deal with the pharma co., out of date knowledge, hearsay and no diagnostic testing.

5uspect

I don't think anyone really disputes that there may be some effective treatments in other traditions. The problem is the understanding and explanations provided for such cures.

As you say simple blind tests are difficult, but they shouldn't be impossible either!

davros

I don't think many skeptics would deny the usefulness of herbal medicine as an input to modern medicine. Knowing where to begin the search for a new drug is half the battle and herbalists have been able to suggest some possible starting points.

But shouldn't we regard herbalism as just one stage along the road to modern medicine? Surely it has been superseded by now.

Aspirin is always called upon to defend the herbalists' cause. But it's not really a natural product, is it? Chewing on willow bark was obviously noted to have beneficial effects but chemists ran with it, isolated the active compound and eventually formulated a related, but not identical, chemical into what we know as aspirin.

Some problems with herbalism as I see it are:

• most of it is bogus (the Wikipedia article on artemisinin, for example, mentions that Chinese medicine offered a list of 200 potential cures for malaria, only one of which was effective).
• effectiveness will never approach a properly researched modern derivative.
• even for those herbal treatments which are valid dosages vary wildly because the herbalist has no idea whether the plant he has collected actually has the active ingredient at all.
• plants can be poisonous as well as medicinal.
• because Chinese/herbal medicine is harvested from plants and animal parts it can push rare species to the point of extinction.
• the Chinese medicine industry is not above fraud. Herbal skin creams have been found to contain steroids, for example, so it's no wonder that they can benefit skin conditions.

Every few years I see an announcement from China or Hong Kong that some university has established a department to seek new drugs using Chinese medicine as a starting point. It's remarkable how little has come from these efforts.

maninasia

I agree with pretty much all your points regarding herbal medicine.
I'd just like to say a few things about the weakness of modern medicine while I am at it.

1) Drugs are given final approval according to their tests among a large group of patients, pretty much ignoring the different genetic makeup of patients. Patients routinely inject combinations of drugs, the interaction of which are unknown

2) Doctors broadly do not use diagnostic tests to do their evaluation. To me as a bioscientist this nothing short of ridiculous.

3) Doctors spend a few mins per patient and in general do not do follow up research following visit or ask for a broad history from the patient

4) Most doctors fail to keep with latest advances in research

5) Doctors diagnose as an individual rather than as a team consensus

In short there are also many valid reasons to be skeptical of modern medicine as it is practised now.

King Mob

maninasia wrote: »

I agree with pretty much all your points regarding herbal medicine.
I'd just like to say a few things about the weakness of modern medicine while I am at it.

1) Drugs are given final approval according to their tests among a large group of patients, pretty much ignoring the different genetic makeup of patients. Patients routinely inject combinations of drugs, the interaction of which are unknown

2) Doctors broadly do not use diagnostic tests to do their evaluation. To me as a bioscientist this nothing short of ridiculous.

3) Doctors spend a few mins per patient and in general do not do follow up research following visit or ask for a broad history from the patient

4) Most doctors fail to keep with latest advances in research

5) Doctors diagnose as an individual rather than as a team consensus

In short there are also many valid reasons to be skeptical of modern medicine as it is practised now.

But surely you can't suggest abandoning an ,albeit faulty, but effective style of medicine for something than not only has no scientific basis but no proven benefits (like homeopathy or acupuncture.)

maninasia

Did you see me mention anything about homeopathy or acupuncture here?
Did I say abandon modern medicine?

No I merely suggest to keep a more open mind on Chinese medicine, especially herbal based component and I also suggested that you cannot apply the same type of criteria to different areas.
Is modern western medicine the standard to be measured against? Yes.
Does it have many reasons to be skeptical of it? Yes

Gibs

Gibs wrote: »

Many of the most vociferous members of the Irish Skeptics are psychologists and it is disappointing to have a lazy dismissal of the value of psychological interventions made in this forum when there is so much good quality evidence that clearly and unambiguously supports the current use and further expansion of psychology/psychotherapy.

Sapien wrote: »

Well that doesn't really have anything to do with anything. I am a ceremonial magician, and a vociferous skeptic. Psychologists are useful in skepticism because they understand things like pareidolia and apophenia. It doesn't follow that psychotherapy is effective, or that pschology should be exempt from skepticism.

I am not suggesting that a person's profession should somehow innoculate them, their opinions or their profession from being subject to the rigours of skeptical, scientific examination. However, your analogy comparing your own profession, being a ceremonial magician, to the profession of a psychologist doesn't really make sense in this instance.

You may be a ceremonial magician, but (most) magicians don't claim that their tricks or illusions are anything more than just that - tricks or illusions. I am assuming that you don't propose that your illusions represent actual transcending of the laws of physics or what is scientifically demonstrable. :P

Psychologists on the other hand are making claims that what they do - attempting to effect/facilitate change in the psychological functioning of people - does result in real, sustainable, actual, measurable change in people.

My point in mentioning that many vociferous skeptics are also psychologists was to emphasise that properly trained psychologists are scientists (and often practitioners) and apply exactly the same scientific rigour to their work and to the kinds of treatments they offer as other scientifically trained individuals such as medical doctors, biochemists, or pharmacists. Perhaps this fact is not widely known outside of the field.

To be a qualified clinical or counselling psychologist, for example, takes many years and involves extremely comprehensive, evidence-based scientifically predicated training. Good psychological research is conducted using exactly the same research designs and protocols as other scientific research. Psychological research is published in peer-reviewed psychology journals as well as the peer-reviewed journals of other disciplines. Psychology as a discipline is often located in the science department of universities and its research methods are no different from those of other scientific disciplines.

I take all of this for granted as I work in the area myself, so when I say that many vociferous skeptics are also psychologists, I am really saying that they are also scientists and therefore think and examine information using an approach that is scientific and that relies on evidence, not assertion and anecdote and is usually in accordance with the approaches advocated by skeptics here and further afield.

My original point was made only to correct your inaccurate description of psychology as some kind of pseudoscientific profession that is conducted without due regard for the measurement of outcomes and effects. In reality, this is a completely misleading caricature. There is a huge amount of reliable, reputable and reproducible evidence, conducted using good, rigorous scientific methodology, that demonstrates that psychotherapy and psychological interventions work. They produce effects that are measurable. Not everyone benefits from psychotherapeutic input, just as not everyone benefits from medical interventions. Nevertheless, legitimate, mainstream psychology as it is practiced today, both in Universities and in clinics, is nothing like the dodgy profession that you are suggesting it is.

It is unfortunate that there is currently no legal control over the profession of psychology in this country as it allows people who don't have the appropriste training to call themselves psychologists. Statutory registration of all psychologists is on the way and should be introduced in the near future. Hopefully, that will weed out those who are not appropriately trained. I just think it's important to differentiate between psychologists who are appropriately trained and people with little or no training who call themselves psychologists.

King Mob

Gibs wrote: »

You may be a ceremonial magician, but (most) magicians don't claim that their tricks or illusions are anything more than just that - tricks or illusions. I am assuming that you don't propose that your illusions represent actual transcending of the laws of physics or what is scientifically demonstrable. :P

I think by ceremonial magician he means Magick with a k.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceremonial_magic

Myksyk

I think it should be mentioned that The Irish Skeptics Society was officially 'launched' at one of the Psychological Society of Ireland's Annual Conferences. Papers were presented taking a critical look at psychological practice. Members of the Irish Skeptics have (before and since this) presented papers challenging psychologists about various aspects of psychological practice. It was very much a case of examining the state of our own house before casting a critical eye elsewhere.

dennis_thompson

Hi all,

to put my two pennorth worth in....

Psychology, the scientific data I have researched to date is that 'talking therapies' are only marginally better than anti depressants, of which they only have a small benefit and even that on the suicidally depressed. (Reference to depression - not other mental states seeking psychiatric treatments!)

Homeopathy - lets just agree it has absolutely no medical effects at all, unless you are allergic to water! Placebo it's great, medicine it aint.

Herbalists, including chinese herbalists, at least they have an ingredient, unlike homeopathy. To say all herbalism is bad for you is B.S., however because it is unregulated, they do not have to have a medical degree and have no access to your medical papers it has the potential to do real harm!

In the UK they are trying to regulate this area, alternative therapies.

Prince Charles supports it 100%:D

Ok I shouldn't laugh but he has to be the biggest believer in all things alternative, perhaps in the world.

Also the regulating body has no power and it is entirely voluntary to join up.

The supposition must be by British government that if these treatments get rubber stamped by their own industry, that makes them safe:D

Maybe we Sceptics need to work insidiously from within, run in elections, get voted to the halls of power and create positive changes for the health and safety of all, in the process giving these charlatans a good kick in the doodads!:D

Anyway thats my two pennorth worth for what it's worth,

regards,

Den.

Peanut

It's more than slightly ironic that Skeptics in the field of psychology have to deal with lack of confidence in their profession, as evidenced by posts here at least.

This situation would be entirely avoidable though if the culture of emotional response and knee-jerk confrontationalism was not condoned as much as it is, throughout skeptical enquiry in general - it doesn't do anyone any favours.

robindch

"Knee-jerk confrontationalism"? Could you be a bit more specific? Who, when, where?

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

"Knee-jerk confrontationalism"? Could you be a bit more specific? Who, when, where?

Jerk promising miracle cures to sick people with nothing more than water + My knee = confrontationalism

:cool:

Peanut

robindch wrote: »

"Knee-jerk confrontationalism"? Could you be a bit more specific? Who, when, where?

Well the first post in this thread for example?
"Why aren't they all busted"

Why not just line them up against a wall while we're at it.

King Mob

Peanut wrote: »

Well the first post in this thread for example?
"Why aren't they all busted"

Why not just line them up against a wall while we're at it.

Well at least then we'd see exactly how effective reiki and homeopathy are on treating gunshot wounds.

Peanut

King Mob wrote: »

Well at least then we'd see exactly how effective reiki and homeopathy are on treating gunshot wounds.

:cool:

I don't believe they are generally indicated by their respective practitioners for that condition, although your mileage may vary.

pH

Peanut wrote: »

:cool:

I don't believe they are generally indicated by their respective practitioners for that condition, although your mileage may vary.

Peanut

nice, had been looking for that Safari kit

robindch

Peanut wrote: »

Why not just line them up against a wall while we're at it.

Given that it's quite clear from context that "busted" was used in it's "held to legal account" sense, I think your own inflammatory and nasty comment above is a much finer example of knee-jerk confrontationalism than anything else on this thread.

Peanut

I think it's quite clear that my comment was not to be taken seriously, unlike the OP.

Zombrex

Peanut wrote: »

I think it's quite clear that my comment was not to be taken seriously, unlike the OP.

Well possibly, but it also seemed that you were trying paint the comments of the OP as being extreme by associating them with an actual extreme example, invented by yourself.

"Whats that? People want pubs to required to implement proper fire safety rules or have their license revoked! Heck, why don't they just bring back the Nazi party and start killing Jews again! For crying out loud!"

That kinda thing.

The OP's query why these people are not busted for illegally practicing medicine was perfectly reasonable. He wasn't implying that they be taken out and shot, he was implying they should be held to the same legal standards as doctors. So where you get "knee-jerk confrontational" from I've no idea.

all the stars

johnsix wrote: »

But a good yoga teacher or masseuse would have the relevant qualifications or at the very least a decent amount of training.

Very true. im a qualified Massage therapist, and our instructor was so concerned about the lack of regulations and not being able to do much about illegal business, like forcing closure.