Science Based Medicine Forum.

[wilcopops]

Every time I click onto this forum I'm astounded by the amount of quackery and pseudo-science that is promulgated.

Couldn't have a science-based (sub) forum where people can talk about science based medicine without all the flummery of homeopathy, chiropractic, naturopathy and TCM etc?

Edited March 29, 2014 by wilcopops

[thepool]

I understand where you are coming from.

I suspect such an idea would fail.

The supporters/believers of Quackery and "magic water " would never be content to just chat among themselves

One of the reasons these people exist is to attempt to inflict Quackery on others !

So the "quacks" would repeatedly infest the suggested forum and it would be a Moderators nightmare to regulate !

Edited March 29, 2014 by thepool

[wilcopops]

I see what you jmean but if you define the medicines that are not science-based - as above - then it would be relatively simple matter to move discussion of these out of the forum.

The definitions are not that hard to define.

[partington]

You are trying to regulate human nature unfortunately. People will just post vast numbers of nonsense validations based on "research" done on the Mercola site, and various mad websites with no scientific basis whatsoever, and call them "science". They would not necessarily be instantly disqualifiable as quackery - e.g. "dietary supplements", some of which are valid, most of which are not.

How about the guy who claimed eating grapes could cure stage 4 cancer here just a year or so ago?

There is no way of dissuading people from what they want to believe. It has taken me a long time to fully accept that people do not want evidence. They want validation of their emotions.

i never tire of recounting how someone here posted a series of recommendations of a program of dietary supplements and strategies that would prevent heart disease and cancer, based on the writings and online marketed products of an "emeritus professor of clinical medicine" , freely available on Amazon.

When this person was presented with incontrovertible factual evidence that this "emeritus professor" was a fraud, with no medical degree, who had never been a professor of anything at any institution, and had been prosecuted for fraud for making these lying claims, his response was: I trust this man over real medical professionals, and have been healthy all my life through following his advice.

Faced with this, how can you believe people are able to even recognise what evidence is, never mind discuss it rationally?

Edited March 29, 2014 by partington

[Tolley]

If it was only so simple and easy as you guys make out but you see it isn't.

The problem is that money skews everything and where there is big money there is always corruption and unfortunately the pharmaceutical industry is rife with corruption.

This link has some interesting articles.

http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/featured/325-jlme-symposium

[wilcopops]

If it was only so simple and easy as you guys make out but you see it isn't.

The problem is that money skews everything and where there is big money there is always corruption and unfortunately the pharmaceutical industry is rife with corruption.

This link has some interesting articles.

http://www.ethics.harvard.edu/lab/featured/325-jlme-symposium

You seem to be confusing two issues....science and the corruption involved in the pharmaceutical industry.

May I suggest you read "Bad Science" by Ben Goldacre?

[Sheryl]

Please see the Health Forum rules. They already contain what you want.

Quack assertions and misinformation are corrected when seen, and members who persist in posting same are dealt with per forum rules.

Simple requests for where to obtain an "alternative" treatment or remedy, and replies to same are let stand. Claims abut same, if unsubstantiated, are not.

[wilcopops]

"What first harmed you will cure you" "Water has memory" - these are not science-based medical conclusions - therefore according to you rules any reference to this quackery should be removed?

[Issangeorge]

All things that may work, may not necessarily be science based. Remember to be science based, many studies and research has to be done. The drug companies do this and if they can't make money by patenting it, then they won't spend money on the research. For instance say a drink of 500ml of water and 10ml of lemon juice cured cancer. Well drug companies can't make any money on that, so that aren't going to spend any money proving it right or wrong. Thus there will never be a scientific study that would give the treatment a scientific base. Who knows it may be true, but drug companies sure aren't going to spend the money finding out.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ X using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Edited April 10, 2014 by Issangeorge

[wilcopops]

Sorry but you seem to be confusing science based medicine with big pharma which is a form of business.

And your example is just the kind of fuzzy, facile thinking that has no place in science based medicine.

[attrayant]

Well drug companies can't make any money on that, so that aren't going to spend any money proving it right or wrong. Thus there will never be a scientific study that would give the treatment a scientific base. Who knows it may be true, but drug companies sure aren't going to spend the money finding out.

Pharmaceutical companies aren't the only people doing scientific studies. In fact, most of the people doing this kind of thing aren't drug companies. Every year, hundreds of thousands of grad students need to perform research as part of their coursework, and something as simple as 'water + lemon juice cures cancer' would be an easy study to perform (mainly because the two chemical compounds mentioned are already safe for human consumption).

[thepool]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

Well drug companies can't make any money on that, so that aren't going to spend any money proving it right or wrong. Thus there will never be a scientific study that would give the treatment a scientific base. Who knows it may be true, but drug companies sure aren't going to spend the money finding out.

Pharmaceutical companies aren't the only people doing scientific studies. In fact, most of the people doing this kind of thing aren't drug companies. Every year, hundreds of thousands of grad students need to perform research as part of their coursework, and something as simple as 'water + lemon juice cures cancer' would be an easy study to perform (mainly because the two chemical compounds mentioned are already safe for human consumption).

Only problem would be associated with obtaining Ethical approval for a clinical trail seeking to "prove" the water+lemon juice was actually effective in treating "cancer" !

[Issangeorge]

I'm not trying to say lemon and water can cure cancer, I have no idea if there was any possibility it could. I just picked those two substances as something the drug industry would never research, because they couldn't patent it. As for grad students doing research, the money to do that research comes from grants and a large amount of that grant money comes from the drug companies. Even if they aren't funding a study they can exert a lot of pressure to prevent other studies from being funded.

Sent from my i-mobile IQ X using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

[Sheryl]

Most grad students are not so lucky as to get grants for their research.

And, those that do -- not at all true that "most" of that money came from pharm companies. Pharm companies do not give general grants to academic institutions . They are quite specific about what research they fund, it has to be of direct interest to them. Which most research is not.

There are many finding sources for research other than drug companies. Quite a bit of research is done that has no particular interest for drug companies or pharmaceutical application.

In addition, it is not necessary for something to have been specifically researched for their to be a scientific discussion or understanding of it. Existing knowledge of physiology can inform quite a lot.

Going back to the "lemon juice and cancer" example, we know what lemon juice contains, we know the processes of digestion (i.e. how substances break down in the stomach and gut, and into what) , we know quiet a bit about the pathophysiiology of cancer and it is quite clear that there is no plausible physiological mechanism through which ingesting lemon juice would affect cancer.