In article <[email hidden]>,
(Sean) said:I apologize if a similar message appears twice, I got an error message
and tried again.
I understand your need for double blind studies to scientifically
prove therapies. What I fail to understand is why you do not uphold
your own profession to these same standards. Dr.Kerr White, the
pioneer of medical RCT ( Randomized Controlled Trials) states that
only 15 % of the current medical procedures have passed these
stringent scientific standards. That means 85 % of it is unfounded (
from a pure scientists perspective )
Not exactly. What it means is that it hasn't reached the highest level
of scientific evidence. That does not mean there isn't scientific
evidence to support the vast majority of what conventional medicine
does. It simply may not be level 1 evidence, but quite often it is a
large accumulation of slightly lower levels of evidence. I suggest you
check out some evidence-based medicine sites and learn about levels of
evidence. The strongest is level 1 (randomized clinical trials). The
levels of evidence are:
1. Randomized clinical trials
i. Double-blinded, placebo-controlled
ii. Non-blinded
2. Non-randomized controlled clinical trials
3. Case series
i. Population-based consecutive case series
ii. Consecutive case series
iii. Non-consecutive case series.
4. Best case series
Now, before you pull the usual altie whine about how little of
conventional medicine is supposedly supported by level 1 evidence, just
remember that for certain therapies (surgical procedures, for instance),
it is not possible to do a truly double-blind randomized trial. However,
in conventional medicine (in marked contrast to alternative medicine)
the goal is nearly always to come as close as is possible or feasible to
level 1 evidence, to do the strongest studies possible with the
resources available.
The problem with most alternative medicine is that the very BEST
evidence most alties present is often barely level 4. That's assuming
the evidence isn't the usual unverifiable second- or third-hand
"testimonials" that constitute the bulk of the "evidence" supporting
various altie therapies. Those don't cut it even as level 4 evidence. As
we say, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data."
Quoted message said:So why then do you not harrass
your own profession for their lack of scientific validity? I got my
information from the following site:
http://www.realhealthcare.org/BCMA.html.
Looking forward to your answer. Orac I have no problem with your
scientific arguments, I am just curious as to why you don't hold your
own profession to the same standards.
In any event, you proceed from a false premise and are using a logical
fallacy, to boot. I do hold my own profession to the same standards.
Evidence-based medicine is slowly but surely increasing the number of
therapies supported by level 1 or level 2 evidence, and that is a good
thing. In my neck of the woods, new therapies ARE subjected to
randomized clinical studies wherever possible.
Next question.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"
