Re: Alternative Medicine Diagnoses

--

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How many doctors do you know crack out the ct scanner when someone

complains

Quoted message said:

of stomach aches?
Anth

The decision to CT an abdomen is based on the patient's history, the nature
and location of the pain, the physical examination of the patient. It's not
automatic, but it's often useful. Rich's point is that doctors do make a
diagnosis.

--Rich

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

How many doctors do you know crack out the ct scanner when someone complains
of stomach aches?

When used appropriately, CT scans are an excellent means of obtaining
objective evidence for disease processes and diagnoses to treat.

I notice you haven't commented on how alternative medicine practitioners
obtain objective evidence for diagnosies, just as Rich predicted.
Instead, you choose to try to deflect attention from the question by
trying to turn it around against conventional medicine. Unfortunately,
your question only reinforces Rich's point.

Quoted message said:

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Alternative medicine often creates diagnoses or greatly expands those
who fall under the umbrella of conventional diagnoses. But the major
problem with many of these alternative diagnoses is lack of BOTH
validity and reliability.

It is easy for an alternative healer to claim that someone has
parasites or mercury poisoning or toxins (undefined) but when it comes
to showing objective evidence of these things such as lab tests that
can correlate with the symptoms. All too often, those who are
diagnosed have general nonspecific symptoms that could be anything.
And those who have a conventional diagnosis will often be told that
they know what the root of the problem is despite no objective
evidence that this is the case.

Often it is just ASSUMED that one has one diagnosis or the other, not
based upon objective criteria, but more on some loose method to make
the diagnosis. For example muscle testing is one of the more
egregiously bogus diagnostic tool in which the alternoquack can
manipulate the test however they choose.

What is especially sad is that this post cannot serve as a starting
point for a meaningful discussion of the validity and reliability of
diagnosis. Instead, those who may disagree with my opinion, will
simply make personal attacks. Sad that. Just watch.

Or instead this post will be ignored by the pro-alt zealots who cannot
logically refute it. But I can confidently predict that not a single
pro-alt will be able to logically refute my assertions. Again just
watch.

Aloha,

Rich
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------

The best defense to logic is ignorance.

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

Rich Shewmaker said:

--

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How many doctors do you know crack out the ct scanner when someone

complains

Quoted message said:

of stomach aches?
Anth

The decision to CT an abdomen is based on the patient's history, the nature
and location of the pain, the physical examination of the patient. It's not
automatic, but it's often useful. Rich's point is that doctors do make a
diagnosis.

Quite correct. And CT scans, when used properly, can provide excellent
OBJECTIVE evidence to support the diagnosis. Now that Anth's attempt to
deflect Rich's original point has been addressed, let's get back to
alternative medicine and what OBJECTIVE evidence alties produce for
their diagnoses, shall we?
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Rich<,@.> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Actually my point is not that doctors do make a diagnosis since
alternative practitioners also make diagnoses. My point is that the
diagnosis of alternative practitioners lacks the validity and
reliability compared to conventional medical diagnoses.

In particular, many of them seem not to have any notion of a differential;
instead of considering *all* of the possible diagnosis that could explain
the patient's symptoms and trying to rule most of them out, they jump on
the first possibility that fits their doctrine. In fact, it would be
pretty hard for them to use a differential since so many of what they call
the "root causes" of all medical problems seem capable of generating any
symptom you can name. So in effect, what gets diagnosed is more a function
of the practitioner than the patient. This immediately leads to
unreliability (there's no hope of different practitioners all coming up
with the same diagnosis for the same patient). Validity is hopeless since
there's no criterion of falsifiability.

But it doesn't really matter anyway, since the treatment the patient gets
doesn't depend on the diagnosis anyway. If the practitioner is a believer
in "liver flushes" then a patient is going to be told to do one regardless
of the symptoms. Or get the practitioner's favored supplement formula. Or
get told to have his teeth pulled. In some cases I doubt there would be
any difference in how the practitioner dealt with a sick patient versus a
healthy patient; the same methods that are used for treatment are also
recommended as preventatives. And if a treatment doesn't appear to make a
difference, the response is almost always to recommend more of it.

Quoted message said:

From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
Date: 8/30/2003 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Rich<,@.> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Actually my point is not that doctors do make a diagnosis since
alternative practitioners also make diagnoses. My point is that the
diagnosis of alternative practitioners lacks the validity and
reliability compared to conventional medical diagnoses.

In particular, many of them seem not to have any notion of a differential;
instead of considering *all* of the possible diagnosis that could explain
the patient's symptoms and trying to rule most of them out, they jump on
the first possibility that fits their doctrine. In fact, it would be
pretty hard for them to use a differential since so many of what they call
the "root causes" of all medical problems seem capable of generating any
symptom you can name. So in effect, what gets diagnosed is more a function
of the practitioner than the patient. This immediately leads to
unreliability (there's no hope of different practitioners all coming up
with the same diagnosis for the same patient). Validity is hopeless since
there's no criterion of falsifiability.

But it doesn't really matter anyway, since the treatment the patient gets
doesn't depend on the diagnosis anyway. If the practitioner is a believer
in "liver flushes" then a patient is going to be told to do one regardless
of the symptoms. Or get the practitioner's favored supplement formula. Or
get told to have his teeth pulled. In some cases I doubt there would be
any difference in how the practitioner dealt with a sick patient versus a
healthy patient; the same methods that are used for treatment are also
recommended as preventatives. And if a treatment doesn't appear to make a
difference, the response is almost always to recommend more of it.

This is YOUR opinion based of what?

The famous brainwashing of organized medicine?

Do tell us what are your experiences in going to an alternative practitioner?

Got any?

Jan

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
Date: 8/30/2003 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Rich<,@.> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Actually my point is not that doctors do make a diagnosis since
alternative practitioners also make diagnoses. My point is that the
diagnosis of alternative practitioners lacks the validity and
reliability compared to conventional medical diagnoses.

In particular, many of them seem not to have any notion of a differential;
instead of considering *all* of the possible diagnosis that could explain
the patient's symptoms and trying to rule most of them out, they jump on
the first possibility that fits their doctrine. In fact, it would be
pretty hard for them to use a differential since so many of what they call
the "root causes" of all medical problems seem capable of generating any
symptom you can name. So in effect, what gets diagnosed is more a function
of the practitioner than the patient. This immediately leads to
unreliability (there's no hope of different practitioners all coming up
with the same diagnosis for the same patient). Validity is hopeless since
there's no criterion of falsifiability.

But it doesn't really matter anyway, since the treatment the patient gets
doesn't depend on the diagnosis anyway. If the practitioner is a believer
in "liver flushes" then a patient is going to be told to do one regardless
of the symptoms. Or get the practitioner's favored supplement formula. Or
get told to have his teeth pulled. In some cases I doubt there would be
any difference in how the practitioner dealt with a sick patient versus a
healthy patient; the same methods that are used for treatment are also
recommended as preventatives. And if a treatment doesn't appear to make a
difference, the response is almost always to recommend more of it.

This is YOUR opinion based of what?

I can't speak for Eric or Rich, but just reading this newsgroup and
various "alternative" medicine websites certainly supports their
statements.

Quoted message said:

The famous brainwashing of organized medicine?

As opposed to the brainwashing of "alternative" medicine?

Quoted message said:

Do tell us what are your experiences in going to an alternative practitioner?

Got any?

Well, actually, from listening to various people who have gone to
alternative practitioners (like you) and who believe in them, I've come
to conclusions similar to those of Rich and Eric.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>, Rich<,@.>

Quoted message said:

Orac said:

Well, actually, from listening to various people who have gone to
alternative practitioners (like you) and who believe in them, I've come
to conclusions similar to those of Rich and Eric.

I can almost guarantee that if Jan responds to this comment it will be
some personal attack. Just watch.

Your prediction is too easy. ;-)

Quoted message said:

Jan Drew can only trash those whose opinions differ from hers. She
cannot discuss anything logically. So she does Google searches to find
something to discredit someone such as being Jewish (Jewboy), atheist,
homosexual, nudist, etc. Sad that.

Oh, I'm well aware of that, having been on the receiving end of Jan's
tirades before....
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rich Shewmaker said:

"Anth" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

How many doctors do you know crack out the ct scanner when someone

complains

Quoted message said:

of stomach aches?
Anth

The decision to CT an abdomen is based on the patient's history, the

nature

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and location of the pain, the physical examination of the patient. It's

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

automatic, but it's often useful. Rich's point is that doctors do make a
diagnosis.

Actually my point is not that doctors do make a diagnosis since
alternative practitioners also make diagnoses. My point is that the
diagnosis of alternative practitioners lacks the validity and
reliability compared to conventional medical diagnoses.

You see alternative practitioners don't have to conform their
diagnoses to any specific criteria that has meaning and relevance.
They can make whatever claims they choose and prescribe whatever
treatment meets their fancy. This is because their results are largely
based upon either the natural history of the illness or due to
psychologic factors (placebo response).

Aloha,

Rich

Waiter! please bring some whine, the cheese is so sharp.

Eric, you need a good , deep enema. You are full of [censored].
"Eric Bohlman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Rich<,@.> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Actually my point is not that doctors do make a diagnosis since
alternative practitioners also make diagnoses. My point is that the
diagnosis of alternative practitioners lacks the validity and
reliability compared to conventional medical diagnoses.

In particular, many of them seem not to have any notion of a differential;
instead of considering *all* of the possible diagnosis that could explain
the patient's symptoms and trying to rule most of them out, they jump on
the first possibility that fits their doctrine. In fact, it would be
pretty hard for them to use a differential since so many of what they call
the "root causes" of all medical problems seem capable of generating any
symptom you can name. So in effect, what gets diagnosed is more a

function

Quoted message said:

of the practitioner than the patient. This immediately leads to
unreliability (there's no hope of different practitioners all coming up
with the same diagnosis for the same patient). Validity is hopeless since
there's no criterion of falsifiability.

But it doesn't really matter anyway, since the treatment the patient gets
doesn't depend on the diagnosis anyway. If the practitioner is a believer
in "liver flushes" then a patient is going to be told to do one regardless
of the symptoms. Or get the practitioner's favored supplement formula.

Or

Quoted message said:

get told to have his teeth pulled. In some cases I doubt there would be
any difference in how the practitioner dealt with a sick patient versus a
healthy patient; the same methods that are used for treatment are also
recommended as preventatives. And if a treatment doesn't appear to make a
difference, the response is almost always to recommend more of it.

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On 30 Aug 2003 18:38:38 GMT, Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

And if a treatment doesn't appear to make a
difference, the response is almost always to recommend more of it.

That is how conventional medicine was practiced centuries ago before
science based medicine replaced empiricism. Leeches would be used to
removed the toxins and if the patient got worse then more leeches were
used to drain more toxins. If the patient died then they reasoned that
they were not able to rid the body of all the toxins instead of
recognizing that they just bled the patient to death!!

Alternative medicine is practiced today how conventional medicine was
practiced in the dark ages. Instead of leeches it is taking out teeth
or doing colon cleanses.

It is all a matter of faith; no objective evidence required.

And you KNOW this. It is not just your uninformed opinion. BULL [censored]!

"Rich" <,@.> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
Date: 8/30/2003 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Rich<,@.> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

> Actually my point is not that doctors do make a diagnosis since
> alternative practitioners also make diagnoses. My point is that the
> diagnosis of alternative practitioners lacks the validity and
> reliability compared to conventional medical diagnoses.

In particular, many of them seem not to have any notion of a

differential;

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

instead of considering *all* of the possible diagnosis that could

explain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the patient's symptoms and trying to rule most of them out, they jump on
the first possibility that fits their doctrine. In fact, it would be
pretty hard for them to use a differential since so many of what they

call

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the "root causes" of all medical problems seem capable of generating any
symptom you can name. So in effect, what gets diagnosed is more a

function

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the practitioner than the patient. This immediately leads to
unreliability (there's no hope of different practitioners all coming up
with the same diagnosis for the same patient). Validity is hopeless

since

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there's no criterion of falsifiability.

But it doesn't really matter anyway, since the treatment the patient

gets

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

doesn't depend on the diagnosis anyway. If the practitioner is a

believer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in "liver flushes" then a patient is going to be told to do one

regardless

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the symptoms. Or get the practitioner's favored supplement formula.

Or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get told to have his teeth pulled. In some cases I doubt there would be
any difference in how the practitioner dealt with a sick patient versus

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

healthy patient; the same methods that are used for treatment are also
recommended as preventatives. And if a treatment doesn't appear to make

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

difference, the response is almost always to recommend more of it.

This is YOUR opinion based of what?

Based upon ten years of reading in this newsgroup

Bwahahahaha, sputter, hehehe ,ummph.
about how

Quoted message said:

alternative practitioners make their diagnoses and treatments.

Based

Quoted message said:

upon ten years of reading this newsgroup about how patients are
treated.

You have been here, attacking Alt, armed with your indepth experince and
knowledge of the how and why of Alternative Medicine.................. All
of which you gained here........................... Right here, in a
newsgroup?........................... Damn!
This is a keeper, I will print this one and hang it on the wall. Damn!

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

Eric Bohlman said:

Rich<,@.> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Actually my point is not that doctors do make a diagnosis since
alternative practitioners also make diagnoses. My point is that the
diagnosis of alternative practitioners lacks the validity and
reliability compared to conventional medical diagnoses.

In particular, many of them seem not to have any notion of a

differential;

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

instead of considering *all* of the possible diagnosis that could

explain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the patient's symptoms and trying to rule most of them out, they jump on
the first possibility that fits their doctrine. In fact, it would be
pretty hard for them to use a differential since so many of what they

call

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the "root causes" of all medical problems seem capable of generating any
symptom you can name. So in effect, what gets diagnosed is more a

function

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the practitioner than the patient. This immediately leads to
unreliability (there's no hope of different practitioners all coming up
with the same diagnosis for the same patient). Validity is hopeless

since

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there's no criterion of falsifiability.

And even when there is falsifiability, the alties refuse to acknowledge
it. For instance, Hulda Clark's continued claims that various "flukes"
cause cancer and various other diseases and that her "zapper" device
will kill these flukes and thus treat all diseases (remember her book,
"The Cure for All Diseases"?) are a perfect example of this, given that
she has never been able to show that these flukes actually exist, that
they cause the diseases she claims they cause, or that her "zapper" and
other means of "cleansing" the body of these "parasites" actually kill
flukes and thus cures disease. It doesn't matter that there is a great
deal of scientific evidence that shows that cancer and AIDS and other
diseases Hulda Clark claims to be able to cure are NOT caused by flukes.

I think Huldas stuff is a bit strange,BUT, we need to taist tha puddin. Are
folks dieing from her treatments? How many? Proof?
Are folks getting well after useing her stuff? Numbers?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But it doesn't really matter anyway, since the treatment the patient

gets

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

doesn't depend on the diagnosis anyway. If the practitioner is a

believer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in "liver flushes" then a patient is going to be told to do one

regardless

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the symptoms. Or get the practitioner's favored supplement formula.

Or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get told to have his teeth pulled. In some cases I doubt there would be
any difference in how the practitioner dealt with a sick patient versus

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

healthy patient; the same methods that are used for treatment are also
recommended as preventatives. And if a treatment doesn't appear to make

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

difference, the response is almost always to recommend more of it.

Precisely. Most of these altie practioners have a "one treatment fits
all disease" approach.

You will provide your research papers and methodolghy to back up this ,
right??????????
No matter what your symptoms or disease, you will

Quoted message said:

often be treated essentially the same way (with minor variations) by the
same practitioner. Other practitioners with different pet therapies will
treat the a patient with the same symptoms or disease in a completely
different way.

You seem confused, that is the way conventionals do it. You should get off
those drugs you know....
Contrary to the alties' claims, in general "alternative"

Quoted message said:

and "naturopathic" therapies are not "individualized" to the patient.
Rather, they are individualized to the practitioner.

And once again, you will provide us with your extensive research

Quoted message said:

--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Jan) said:

Quoted message said:

From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
Date: 8/30/2003 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Rich<,@.> wrote in news:[email hidden]:

> Actually my point is not that doctors do make a diagnosis since
> alternative practitioners also make diagnoses. My point is that the
> diagnosis of alternative practitioners lacks the validity and
> reliability compared to conventional medical diagnoses.

In particular, many of them seem not to have any notion of a

differential;

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

instead of considering *all* of the possible diagnosis that could

explain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the patient's symptoms and trying to rule most of them out, they jump

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the first possibility that fits their doctrine. In fact, it would be
pretty hard for them to use a differential since so many of what they

call

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the "root causes" of all medical problems seem capable of generating

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

symptom you can name. So in effect, what gets diagnosed is more a

function

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the practitioner than the patient. This immediately leads to
unreliability (there's no hope of different practitioners all coming up
with the same diagnosis for the same patient). Validity is hopeless

since

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there's no criterion of falsifiability.

But it doesn't really matter anyway, since the treatment the patient

gets

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

doesn't depend on the diagnosis anyway. If the practitioner is a

believer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

in "liver flushes" then a patient is going to be told to do one

regardless

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the symptoms. Or get the practitioner's favored supplement formula.

Or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

get told to have his teeth pulled. In some cases I doubt there would

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

any difference in how the practitioner dealt with a sick patient versus

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

healthy patient; the same methods that are used for treatment are also
recommended as preventatives. And if a treatment doesn't appear to

make a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

difference, the response is almost always to recommend more of it.

This is YOUR opinion based of what?

I can't speak for Eric or Rich, but just reading this newsgroup and
various "alternative" medicine websites certainly supports their
statements.

Quoted message said:

The famous brainwashing of organized medicine?

As opposed to the brainwashing of "alternative" medicine?

Quoted message said:

Do tell us what are your experiences in going to an alternative

practitioner?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Got any?

Well, actually, from listening to various people who have gone to
alternative practitioners (like you) and who believe in them, I've come
to conclusions similar to those of Rich and Eric.
--

Thank you for clearing things up. Now the world can agree or not with you
based on the fact that you got your extensive Alternative Medicine knowledge
right here,.......... on this newsgroup............

[email hidden] (Jan) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Do tell us what are your experiences in going to an alternative practitioner?

Do tell us what your personal experience is with facts and reality? Got any?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Anth said:

Some alternative MD's use CT scans, along with mainstream methods in
combination with orthodox.

Typically Dr Contreras does this in his Oasis of Hope hospital.
As for using a 'xlyophone' or whatever it's called, maybe it does work,
maybe it doesn't? Has it been tested?
I seem to remember a posting a while back saying that Hulda's zapper does in
fact selectively kill bacteria.

Evenif it did selectively kill bacteria, that would be irrelevant, as
that's not the claim Clark makes for it. She claims it kills flukes,
which to her are the cause of nearly all disease.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

In article <[email hidden]>,

David said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] (Jan) wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do tell us what are your experiences in going to an alternative

practitioner?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Got any?

Well, actually, from listening to various people who have gone to
alternative practitioners (like you) and who believe in them, I've come
to conclusions similar to those of Rich and Eric.
--

Thank you for clearing things up. Now the world can agree or not with you
based on the fact that you got your extensive Alternative Medicine knowledge
right here,.......... on this newsgroup............

I didn't say all of my information came from this newsgroup. Just part
of it. You seem to be very good at distorting people's statements.
Perhaps you are learning from Jan.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Quoted message said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

(Jan) said:

>From: Eric Bohlman [email hidden]
>Date: 8/30/2003 10:38 AM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email hidden]>
>
>Rich<,@.> wrote in news:[email hidden]:
>
>> Actually my point is not that doctors do make a diagnosis since
>> alternative practitioners also make diagnoses. My point is that the
>> diagnosis of alternative practitioners lacks the validity and
>> reliability compared to conventional medical diagnoses.
>
>In particular, many of them seem not to have any notion of a

differential;

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>instead of considering *all* of the possible diagnosis that could

explain

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>the patient's symptoms and trying to rule most of them out, they jump

on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>the first possibility that fits their doctrine. In fact, it would be
>pretty hard for them to use a differential since so many of what they

call

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>the "root causes" of all medical problems seem capable of generating

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>symptom you can name. So in effect, what gets diagnosed is more a

function

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>of the practitioner than the patient. This immediately leads to
>unreliability (there's no hope of different practitioners all coming up
>with the same diagnosis for the same patient). Validity is hopeless

since

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>there's no criterion of falsifiability.
>
>But it doesn't really matter anyway, since the treatment the patient

gets

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>doesn't depend on the diagnosis anyway. If the practitioner is a

believer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>in "liver flushes" then a patient is going to be told to do one

regardless

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>of the symptoms. Or get the practitioner's favored supplement formula.

Or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>get told to have his teeth pulled. In some cases I doubt there would

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>any difference in how the practitioner dealt with a sick patient versus

a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>healthy patient; the same methods that are used for treatment are also
>recommended as preventatives. And if a treatment doesn't appear to

make a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>difference, the response is almost always to recommend more of it.

This is YOUR opinion based of what?

I can't speak for Eric or Rich, but just reading this newsgroup and
various "alternative" medicine websites certainly supports their
statements.

Quoted message said:

The famous brainwashing of organized medicine?

As opposed to the brainwashing of "alternative" medicine?

Quoted message said:

Do tell us what are your experiences in going to an alternative

practitioner?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Got any?

Well, actually, from listening to various people who have gone to
alternative practitioners (like you) and who believe in them, I've come
to conclusions similar to those of Rich and Eric.
--

Thank you for clearing things up. Now the world can agree or not with you
based on the fact that you got your extensive Alternative Medicine knowledge
right here,.......... on this newsgroup............

I have much experience with Alternative Medicine and with Alternative
Diagnosis. As both a practitioner and a consumer of Alternative Medicine, let
me say that Rich, Orac, & Eric are being quite charitable in their assements.
In stark contrast, MedTools is just being a mealy-mouthed, [censored]-drunk,
Ass-Clown.

Of the many alternative medical systems, TCM is amongst the very few that have
a coherent diagnosis system. While some may doubt its external validity, it
does possess quite a bit of internal consistency, unlike Chiropractic. Signs,
symptoms, and objective findings are organized into clear categories. There is
simply no underlying dogma that requires that all diseases have but a single
cause or even that most diseases have but one cause.

In my practice, almost all of my patients are currently under a physician's
care. If there were a need for blood work, radiology, or to Rx meds, that has
been performed. These patients have already been diagnosed and to some extent,
treated. My diagnoses are, in most cases, a guide to which acupuncture points
to use, which herbal formula might be of assistence, and most importantly, what
NOT to do.

Contrast this with alt practioners that frighten parents by telling them that
vaccines cause AD-HD or that Aspartame does. How about alt-practitioners that
claim amalgams cause illness? How about alts that diagnose cancer by using a
Sphinctrometer? The list of ridiculous diagnoses and dubious methods goes on
and on.

The bottom line is that MD's have to put a diagnosis that will stand up to
legal scrutiny should complications arise. In very few occasions do
alt-practitioners have to live up to this high standard and such persistent
scrutiny.

MedTools, I now command you to stop advocating any form of Asian Medicine. I
greatly prefer that you put all your efforts into opposing my profession as
that improves my personal & professional well-being.

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden] (TaskForce 20)
Date: 8/31/2003 11:44 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id: <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Subject:

Real Lies and real boring as ususal from Andrew Kingoff.

Jan

Just pulls yer underwear up real high don't it?
"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,

David said:

"Orac" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Eric Bohlman <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> In particular, many of them seem not to have any notion of a

differential;

Quoted message said:

> instead of considering *all* of the possible diagnosis that could

explain

Quoted message said:

> the patient's symptoms and trying to rule most of them out, they

jump on

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the first possibility that fits their doctrine. In fact, it would

be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> pretty hard for them to use a differential since so many of what

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

call

Quoted message said:

> the "root causes" of all medical problems seem capable of generating

any

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> symptom you can name. So in effect, what gets diagnosed is more a

function

Quoted message said:

> of the practitioner than the patient. This immediately leads to
> unreliability (there's no hope of different practitioners all coming

up

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> with the same diagnosis for the same patient). Validity is hopeless

since

Quoted message said:

> there's no criterion of falsifiability.

And even when there is falsifiability, the alties refuse to

acknowledge

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it. For instance, Hulda Clark's continued claims that various "flukes"
cause cancer and various other diseases and that her "zapper" device
will kill these flukes and thus treat all diseases (remember her book,
"The Cure for All Diseases"?) are a perfect example of this, given

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

she has never been able to show that these flukes actually exist, that
they cause the diseases she claims they cause, or that her "zapper"

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

other means of "cleansing" the body of these "parasites" actually kill
flukes and thus cures disease. It doesn't matter that there is a great
deal of scientific evidence that shows that cancer and AIDS and other
diseases Hulda Clark claims to be able to cure are NOT caused by

flukes.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I think Huldas stuff is a bit strange,BUT, we need to taist tha puddin.

Are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

folks dieing from her treatments? How many? Proof?
Are folks getting well after useing her stuff? Numbers?

No one's being cured by her treatments. At least, there is no evidence
that shows her treatment to be effective, and Clark won't allow
scientific testing of her claims.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> But it doesn't really matter anyway, since the treatment the patient

gets

Quoted message said:

> doesn't depend on the diagnosis anyway. If the practitioner is a

believer

Quoted message said:

> in "liver flushes" then a patient is going to be told to do one

regardless

Quoted message said:

> of the symptoms. Or get the practitioner's favored supplement

formula.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Or

Quoted message said:

> get told to have his teeth pulled. In some cases I doubt there

would be

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> any difference in how the practitioner dealt with a sick patient

versus

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

> healthy patient; the same methods that are used for treatment are

also

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> recommended as preventatives. And if a treatment doesn't appear to

make

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a

Quoted message said:

> difference, the response is almost always to recommend more of it.

Precisely. Most of these altie practioners have a "one treatment fits
all disease" approach.

You will provide your research papers and methodolghy to back up this ,
right??????????

Says the one who claims that alternative medicine works and then can't
provide his own research papers and methodology, one who avoids the
responsibility of providing evidence for his claims by hiding behind the
words "I think."

[Snip]
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"