Author Topic: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad  (Read 1174 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mika

  • 28
  • Posts: 473
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Well, if you are going to blame me for cherry-picking, why didn't you include the part just below it where it was found to be very effective at treating upper back and neck pain?

As in:
Quote
Neck pain
For neck pain, manipulation and mobilization produce similar changes, and manual therapy and exercise are more effective than other strategies.[11][needs update][12] There is moderate- to high-quality evidence that subjects with chronic neck pain, not due to whiplash and without arm pain and headaches, show clinically important improvements from a course of spinal manipulation or mobilization.[13] There is not enough evidence to suggest that spinal manipulation is an effective long-term treatment for whiplash although there are short term benefits.[14]

As I said, it is more complex to find the cause of the lower back pain than upper back pain, this is also quite well-known by the therapists. When they are saying the method wasn't any better at treating the lower back pain, did any of the methods actually provide relief for the patients?
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Cause the previous source on wikipedia said that it was useless for neck pain.

You said

I have seen that the US homeopaths are actually including manual therapy to their repertoire, and that is definitely with a solid empirical and scientific background.

I think I've proved beyond any doubt that it's not solid at all. We could go round and round on sources but in the end you have to face the fact that if there is so much disagreement from actual scientists on the matter then there isn't any clear scientific proof that it works. What needs to happen is for chiropractic to undergo some proper medical trials to actually prove the claims it makes. And chiropractors need to be willing to accept the results if their profession is proved to actually be doing harm (or no good). 
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
  • Posts: 473
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Cause the previous source on wikipedia said that it was useless for neck pain.

You said

I have seen that the US homeopaths are actually including manual therapy to their repertoire, and that is definitely with a solid empirical and scientific background.

I think I've proved beyond any doubt that it's not solid at all. We could go round and round on sources but in the end you have to face the fact that if there is so much disagreement from actual scientists on the matter then there isn't any clear scientific proof that it works. What needs to happen is for chiropractic to undergo some proper medical trials to actually prove the claims it makes. And chiropractors need to be willing to accept the results if their profession is proved to actually be doing harm (or no good). 

That's because I took it is common knowledge that lower back pain is harder to diagnose than upper back. I would expect the results to be muddier there. I could also explain why but I don't think we need to go there.

As we have seen, there are published results that show a favorable outcome for the upper back pain treatment. Lower back is harder, but guess what, actual doctors have harder time in diagnosing correctly too. Note that they said there was no difference to other treatments, i.e. the current standard treatment process is not better either.

I maintain my position, you said manual therapy is unscientific and lacks evidence, and I said there actually is science behind it and linked the peer-reviewed papers that do so. Also, the lack of conclusive evidence on lower back does not mean either that it is disproven. Claiming the whole thing unscientific is thus quite pre-mature, and I think also ignorant of the state of the research. I also stated that the likely reason you'll see inconclusive results is that the patients were not diagnosed properly by the medical community who has the equipment to check for other problems in the lower back region in addition to the facet locks which can be reliably identified by good manual therapists. This is likely evidenced in the papers themselves, if the source of pain of the patient was not identified by the medical community itself for each individual and resolved to prove it was the causal agent (as the superior system should), then any conclusion they make about the effectiveness of the manual therapy with respect to anything is also questionable and I think also intellectually dishonest. As I said, manual therapy can relieve some types of pain but not all of it. Differentiate the cases when it can and find out why.

I do agree that it would be a good idea for chiropractors and manual therapists to start doing medical trials, that would weed out the stupid from the field too. However, that would mean the medical community would need to take the chiropracty (or methods related to it) a bit more seriously and actually put some effort on diagnosing these problems themselves as well. Differentiate the methods from the questionable theory, since the methods practised by the chiropractors are far older than chiropracty itself, going back all the way to Hippocrates (and likely far older than that too). These methods would not have survived up to this day if they didn't have some merit behind them, just like how to set the bones in fractures. The additional research dilemma here is related to the double blind studies, I think these are practical impossibilities with respect to manual therapy, especially in the case of a facet lock. I just don't see any way you could fake that without the patient knowing.

Note that there have been several advancements on this everyday life field on the medical side in the recent years. Research related to myo-fascial pain has been increasing in the recent years, and I think this is a good thing, because that I think is the bridge between the older treatment system and can expand the current understanding, if any link can be found. Big wheels turn slowly.
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline LaineyBugsDaddy

  • 27
  • Posts: 199
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
No good for neck pain? Tell that to someone whose spine got misaligned in the neck and a chiropractic adjustment gotit to go back into proper alignment, producing instant relief. And by instant, I mean there was no time for the chiropractor to tell me that I should start to feel better shortly. As in  he adjusted my neck, and I got relief directly from the adjustment. This was years ago, but it really happened and the adjustment really worked. As for homeopathic medicine, that's a joke. But proper chiropracty is a matter of making sure your vertebrae line up like they should. This relieves pain from the misalignment itself and can potentially relieve other pain if the misalignment causes a nerve to be pinched. I just wish I could afford another chiropractic visit when I have issues with my sacrilliac joint going out of alignment. Gives me a terrible case of sciatica when it happens.
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

Offline Bobboau

  • Just a MODern kinda guy
    Just MODerately cool
    And MODest too
  • 213
  • Posts: 10,317
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
The problem with chiropractic is there is a smooth continuous spectrum of utter quackery all the way to some degree of legitimate efficacy. It's unregulated and unverifiable.
Bobboau, bringing you products that work... in theory
learn to use PCS
creator of the ProXimus Procedural Texture and Effect Generator
My latest build of PCS2, get it while it's hot!
PCS 2.0.3


DEUTERONOMY 22:11
Thou shalt not wear a garment of diverse sorts, [as] of woollen and linen together

 

Offline LaineyBugsDaddy

  • 27
  • Posts: 199
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Where the hell are you getting your chiropracty? They regulate the hell out of it in Washington state. A chiropractor isn't even allowed to use a TENS unit here. They are limited to manual manipulation and a few tools for more stubborn misaligned vertebrae and they, so far as I know, have to be properly trained and licensed. I think they have to go through some of the same training that an Osteopath or D.O. (Doctor of Osteopathy) has to go through.
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
http://www.aucm.org/program.asp?ProgId=18

I'll just leave this here as proof that you can get qualifications in things that aren't real.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline LaineyBugsDaddy

  • 27
  • Posts: 199
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Not saying there isn't a lot of BS out there, but even Osteopaths do spinal manipulation and adjustments, the very same adjustments one could get at a reputable chiropractor. So it would seem that much is for real.
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

Offline Det. Bullock

  • 28
  • Posts: 300
  • Madman in a box.
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Not saying there isn't a lot of BS out there, but even Osteopaths do spinal manipulation and adjustments, the very same adjustments one could get at a reputable chiropractor. So it would seem that much is for real.

Both have been born as doctrines that essentially said that bone manipulation was a panacea, practitioners downplay this obviously but they are still quackery.
Whatever usefulness there is in thise practices is already implemented in ordinary phisiotherapy.
"I pity the poor shades confined to the euclidean prison that is sanity." - Grant Morrison
"People assume  that time is a strict progression of cause to effect,  but *actually*  from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more  like a big ball  of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff." - The Doctor

 

Offline LaineyBugsDaddy

  • 27
  • Posts: 199
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Um, if that were true, a D.O. would not be equivalent to an M.D., but it is. I've never heard anyone accuse a Doctor of Osteopathy of quackery.
There are only 10 kinds of people in the world;
those who understand binary and those who don't.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
I can't even follow the logic you're trying here. As I've already shown you can get a PhD in homeopathy so why would the amount of study required to get a D.O. make the subject actually valid?
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline 666maslo666

  • 28
  • Posts: 386
  • Artificial Neural Network
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Um, if that were true, a D.O. would not be equivalent to an M.D., but it is. I've never heard anyone accuse a Doctor of Osteopathy of quackery.

D.O. is the equivalent of M.D. because D.O. study the same things as M.D. do. Then they also study osteopathy on top of that, and this part is indeed highly likely quackery.

And if you havent heard about anyone accusing D.O. of quackery, then you havent been listening hard enough. That osteopathy is quackery or at least dubious is a pretty common opinion.
"For once you have tasted flight you will walk the earth with your eyes turned skywards, for there you have been and there you will long to return." - Leonardo da Vinci

Arguing on the internet is like running in the Special Olympics. Even if you win you are still retarded.

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Bear in mind that osteopath means different things in the US and Europe. In America it means a doctor while in Europe it means a practitioner of alternative medicine. There's plenty of quackery in the latter kind.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Mika

  • 28
  • Posts: 473
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Quote
Whatever usefulness there is in thise practices is already implemented in ordinary phisiotherapy.

If we lived in an ideal world, that would be the case. Unfortunately, we do not.

Physiotherapy indeed contains a lot of the tools needed to solve the mobility issues that a person might have. But there is one big gap, and this is related to the identification and treatment of facet locks. If the facet lock is not corrected, no amount of stretching or mobilization exercises are going to help. In the worse case, attempting the exercises shows that it is simply not possible to do the requested thing, and more worse, it can make things more painful and harder to correct. However, those mobility exercises ARE needed once the lock has been cleared. But even that is not enough, since the lock will likely not open until the surrounding muscle tissue is relaxed.

On what it comes to anecdotal evidence, my own experience with the physiotherapists has been below the expectations. On what it comes to people having better mobility than average or to people exercising more than your average person, the physiotherapists (and doctors too!) seem to be quite clueless. One of the better laugh riots during my kung fu time was caused by a student of Medicine exclaiming that it is not humanly possible for a person to hold a riding stance for more than a minute. Yeaaaaah, right. He was aptly demonstrated to be wrong when a practitioner held the position for 5 minutes just to show off :lol:

Now, I'm actually an educated physicist (with some Nature exposure to boot), and I'm starting to get fed up with the nowadays scientifically induced idiocy - not related to this topic only. Filtering out what anecdotal evidence can hold factual observations is among the harder problems any practitioner of Science can face. But dismissing it entirely is more dangerous, because, sometimes the anecdotal evidence is correct. The result of this is doctors telling that you cannot possibly be feeling pain because we cannot find the source of it, so it must be psycho-somatic: "Would you like to see the psychiatrist next?"

The result of that is the Physicists telling the sailors their stories of massive waves are overtly exaggerated (despite anecdotal evidence showing the opposite since the beginning of 1900s), until one of the rogue waves struck Draupner platform and was actually measured since that Ramapo measurement from WWII and more modern photograph from Bay of Biscay was not enough. Turned out that the sailors weren't lying, and physicists had been dismissing them for a couple of hundred years, possibly causing loss of life in the thousands!

Obviously a person cannot break a coconut with a finger, right until the moment you see one just doing that.

EDIT: Recalled the incident incorrectly. Ramapo measured the wave height by triangulation, while the photograph I was talking about was from Bay of Biscay.
« Last Edit: February 05, 2017, 11:16:01 am by Mika »
Relaxed movement is always more effective than forced movement.

 

Offline MikeRoz

  • 26
  • Posts: 94
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
But dismissing it entirely is more dangerous, because, sometimes the anecdotal evidence is correct.
But it is so much more satisfying to define, ostracize, and ridicule an outgroup. I think I'll do that instead.
Rave reviews of my previous posts:
"Wow.  Just wow.  Well, just about the whole post is devoid of reasonable technical merit and accuracy." -Enki
"Wow, he just wasted about an hour of his life." -MachManX
"There are 5 million things wrong with your post, of which many have already been pointed out..." -blackhole
"Grrr. Someone please monkey mike...He's causing more problems than he's solving" -terran_emperor

 

Offline karajorma

  • King Louie - Jungle VIP
  • Administrator
  • 214
  • Posts: 29,439
    • Karajorma's Freespace FAQ
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Now, I'm actually an educated physicist (with some Nature exposure to boot), and I'm starting to get fed up with the nowadays scientifically induced idiocy - not related to this topic only. Filtering out what anecdotal evidence can hold factual observations is among the harder problems any practitioner of Science can face. But dismissing it entirely is more dangerous, because, sometimes the anecdotal evidence is correct. The result of this is doctors telling that you cannot possibly be feeling pain because we cannot find the source of it, so it must be psycho-somatic: "Would you like to see the psychiatrist next?"

Similarly though claiming something has been proven on the basis of anecdotal evidence is also dangerous. How many people have lost their lives due to quackery? It opens the door for people to claim that the anti-vax message is real or any number of other unscientific things.
Karajorma's Freespace FAQ. It's almost like asking me yourself.

[ Diaspora ] - [ Seeds Of Rebellion ] - [ Mind Games ]

 

Offline Phantom Hoover

  • 211
  • Posts: 2,598
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
you can't call chiropractors and osteopaths doctors, that's the first step down a slippery slope that leads to calling dentists doctors
The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell.

 

Offline Aesaar

  • 210
  • Posts: 1,254
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Filtering out what anecdotal evidence can hold factual observations is among the harder problems any practitioner of Science can face. But dismissing it entirely is more dangerous, because, sometimes the anecdotal evidence is correct.
If all you have is anecdotal evidence, how do you know it isn't just a fluke?  A fluke is evidence of absolutely nothing. 

Until a medical treatment is proven to work on a statistically significant sample size, there is no basis for claiming it works.  Any improvement you personally note could be nothing more than the placebo effect or the result of an unrelated factor.  This is why clinical trials are a thing.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2017, 01:54:54 pm by Aesaar »

 

Offline Torchwood

  • 27
  • Posts: 140
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
Why do we put up with these quacks? Their pseudoscience doesn't even stand up to the slightest scrutiny, and any proper evaluation conducted on them says homeopaths are nothing but scam artists making money of the gullible.
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 06:48:30 pm by Torchwood »

 

Offline Dragon

  • Citation needed
  • 212
  • Posts: 6,689
  • The sky is the limit.
Re: If you need any further proof that homeopathy is bad
If all you have is anecdotal evidence, how do you know it isn't just a fluke?  A fluke is evidence of absolutely nothing. 
And what if you have, say, ten people claiming that it works? Ten flukes? Possible. Now, a hundred? Sure, you can ask, out of how many? Still, at some point, you'll be looking at a considerable pile of "anecdotal evidence". If you're a good scientist, you'll start to ask "what is causing this"? If you're a Believer of Science (or a bad scientist, same thing, really), you'll dismiss them ex cathedra as "anecdotal evidence". Remember: the words "statistically significant", on their own, mean absolutely nothing. Give me your p-value, your alpha and beta, name the test you're using, or go home. If you want, 100 cases out of million can be "statistically significant", or 50 out of 100 can be insignificant, just by fiddling with the significance level (the aforementioned alpha). Then you have the strength of your test (beta), which also influences the conclusion you arrive at. Not all tests are created equal, in some cases you can change your conclusion just by selecting a different mathematical method. And that's just the basics.

Statistical significance is a thing, of course, but it also depends on a surprising number of factors. It's not just a term to throw around. Also, outliers, no matter how few of them, have be caused by something. Many a Nobel prize was awarded not for being the first to see something, but rather the first to realize what it could be (and promptly investigating further). Statistics are a way of accounting for too many factors to realistically account for in a deterministic way, but it's important to remember that outside of quantum effects, the world is deterministic to a very good precision.

For example, maybe an odd therapy has an obscure and uncommon prerequisite for working. If you test a random sample of people, you'll never get a definite result. However, if it occurs to you to check what the people who did get better have in common, you might make a discovery. Even anecdotal evidence can help here, especially if you're trying to get by without running a staggeringly expensive experiment that a full clinical trial is. It's another thing people often don't understand. You don't "just" run a clinical trial with an arbitrary sample size. Quite often, it's a choice between an inadequate sample size or not being able to afford to run it at all. Efficacy studies (a.k.a. phase III, what we're talking about here) are the worst of all.
Now, I'm actually an educated physicist (with some Nature exposure to boot), and I'm starting to get fed up with the nowadays scientifically induced idiocy - not related to this topic only. Filtering out what anecdotal evidence can hold factual observations is among the harder problems any practitioner of Science can face. But dismissing it entirely is more dangerous, because, sometimes the anecdotal evidence is correct. The result of this is doctors telling that you cannot possibly be feeling pain because we cannot find the source of it, so it must be psycho-somatic: "Would you like to see the psychiatrist next?"
I know what you're talking about. This, I feel is often related to the fact that lay people think "scientists are so smart that they know almost everything". We do have an enormous, nearly unimaginable amount of scientific knowledge, but what always amazes me is the amount of things we don't know, which appears to be even greater. The laws of universe (and us, humans!) are just that complex. Disregarding this complexity is, I feel, one of the premier causes of both overt confidence in the current knowledge and mistrust for scientists and their discoveries.