Now I have always personally liked the concept of natural medicine. Especially Eastern medicines that are designed around specific formulations based on individual requirements and body compatibility.
That said I am also sceptical when looking at claims for natural medicines that promise to cure everything from warts to cancer and every other type of illness. The reason in my mind is that if it was that effective would it not be the standard norm of cures. Or would it. Is it possible that the profits of the large pharmaceuticals would so override the humanity of the cures that they would be buried. It is possible and is an interesting perception.
That said when I look at autism and supposed cures I have to look at it with a jaundiced eye as well as a healthy dose of thought and common sense.
Over various researches and testing there have been many different “causes” of autism found. Most involving a small portion of autistic cases but one interesting factor is that if taken at face value it could be said that there are many multiple causes of autism.
While I believe this lends support for the clarification of various forms of autism (similar to perhaps differentiating between different types of cancer) it also leads to the possibility that there could also be various cures that would affect different sectors of the autistic community in different ways.
Take for example the number of parents who have used a gluten free diet with varying forms of success, from no change to improvement in abilities and on to an apparent cure. The same has been found with chelation therapy.
Now there are groups that say if a person is “cured” using this method then they were never actually “autistic” but I am not convinced that is necessarily the case. If it is accurate that there are many differing causes to autism then it should also stand to reason that there could realistically be various forms of cures and that each cause and cure could be correlated. With varying levels of autism and the clinical diagnoses being based on a set of conditions rather then a testable and provable existence like that found in cancer it is quite possible that these “set of conditions” could be brought on in various different patients in different manners therefore leading to various different cures.
Now I don't have a specific “cure” that I am touting I am simply questioning if the rush to cast doubts on various “cures” or “diagnoses is actually the best use of our time. If any specific cure works for any specific individual then that cure should be lauded. Not as a cure all but as a new possibility that may actually be helpful in a group of individuals that are affected in exactly the same way.
Research is definitely needed to see if this is a possibility and as always I am a strong proponent to more and more research being done to allow our children and our future generations the best possibilities to meet the most of their potential.
13 comments:
Ok, lets get this straight. You are not talking about any cure in particular but somehow you think that there is a rush to cast doubts on these non-specific cures. How does one arrive at such a bizzaro belief?
Not to mention that the two alleged cures you mention have had a number of RCTs with negative findings done on them.
Typical nonsense about "eastern medicine" I would have expected better of you Carl. For example why even assume that individualism (rather than simple randomness) has anything to do with Asian (or otherwise eastern) medicine.
i dont have to talk about specific cures to bring out those who are quickly going to do everything they can to poo poo the idea that there is any possibility that eastern medicine or any kind of natural medicine can be accurate.
i understand why. if a specific cure only works for a specific individual then it would be impossible to mass produce it for sale to the masses.
now i dont actually discount eastern medicine and i dont think that taking it relatively seriously is at all a bad thing
as far as specific cures having potential negative effects well realistically have you ever looked at the medicines and their side effects for many common ailments. on the majority of them death is listed as a potential side effect. so it is difficult to imagine how negative findings in a research should necessarily rule out the possibility it could help some people.
Well, actually yeah you do need to talk about specific instances - otherwise it's just a strawman argument.
Nonetheless your paranoia is amusing. Have you considered instead of some economic argument that a alleged cure which worked on one and only one person in all of time - could never ever have the effect strongly linked to the cause. Which brings up the question - How could such a cure be divined in the first place?
"relatively seriously" relative to what? and by what margin? The first and biggest mistake that you Westerners make is the very usage of the term "eastern medicine" which implies some kind of majority view of medical practice. Nothing could be further from the truth. One study noted that for identical patents describing the same condition acupuncturists only used 20% of the same points.
Oh and "negative findings" doesn't mean that there is some kind of negative effect to ones health. It means the therapy was found to have no effect. Let me get all psychic on your ass. You think you can't rule out Chelation curing some people even if a large-scale RCT showed it to have no effect generally. Right?
you are generally correct
i do not believe that just because it does not work in the majority of cases does not mean that it will not work in at least some cases.
which is why i do agree with eastern medicine as it is called.
it has been shown to work but you are correct not every "doctor" or practioner actually uses exactly the same methods. that does not disprove its applicability simply it just allows for flexibility patient to patient and practioner to practioner the actual issue is not whether or not it is repeatable but does it work.
Of course you believe that. However do you also believe when something is shown not to work in the majority of cases it affects the credibility of any and all subgroups commensurately?
I'm not sure why any of that makes you agree with "eastern-medicine-as-it's-called-by-white-folks"
"shown to work" is deceptive since because there is little evidence to suggest that various 中醫 modalities like 針灸 do anything useful. "exactly the same methods" is also deceptive. It would be true in just about any action a human can take. However that's clearly not what the evidence showed as in this particular case multiple practitioners examined the same patient with the same description of the condition and the highest number of in common was 20%. This isn't about flexibility it's about a lack of consensus...and of course a lack of science.
It's pretty apparent you know squat about the subject but go ahead amuse me. Tell me how you demonstrate efficacy without replication.
我反感白人至上主義的詐!
i will give you a co-related answer to think on so you understand why i think something that only works on some cases is a valid solution for those cases.
look at autism for example depending on the various answers some say as high as 10 percent of autism cases can be directly linked to genetics, now just because the other 90% cannot be linked to genetics does this mean that you throw out the credibility of that 10%?
any treatment that works for any individual has merit regardless if that treatment is only valid for the one person.
now as for a "lack of science" to accupuncture. well i am not going to side on that one way or another. basically look at it this way. how long is any given nerve and what is it's path throught any human body. but realistically i guess my key point is if it works why mess with it.
To me in all questions relating to natural medicine the question always is does it work in my specific case? if it does it is usable if it does not then it is of no value to me.
LOL I think even a high-school level of probability theory would tell you that you are either not comparing the same things or answering a rather different question than you seem to think you are.
You haven't mentioned how you determine merit or efficacy with only a sample of one. I await you to amuse me.
merit is based on a case by case basis not by some overall judgement of it helping everyone
it is common sense if it works for you then you use it. if it does not then you dont
LOL - I can't wait to relay this one. Yes if it works you use it. However you've all but admitted that no method exists for determining if something "works" (since this would likely involve replication which would annihilate your thesis). You're only a few easy moves away from cornering yourself into either a priori acceptance of everything, rejecting everything, or contradicting yourself but I suspect you know that. So instead I think you'll fall back to your most well-used ploy to-date: Shutting up or talking about something else entirely.
Look I get it. I don't know what you do for a living but you pretty much scream that in whatever line of work you do. The appearance of knowledge is far more important than actually knowing something. My work is, for the most part the opposite. This explains why you spend what appears to be a monstrous amount of energy trying to avoid people finding out that you are pretty ignorant.
It should be pretty obvious to you by now that as a consequence you also avoid saying anything meaningful (for example it wouldn't be hard to argue that this blog post could be entitled 'uninteresting thoughts on natural medicine')
Anyway you're still pretty funny so until you decide to add some value to the world - don't let your subscription to the Fortean Times lapse.
actually the simple fact is quite realistic.
you have to try something to find out if it works
i would think an educated person would figure that part out.
Guess I win that bet: You went with talking about something unrelated.
If somehow you are sincere (or sincerely deluded) you might think about how you have confused "required" with "sufficient".
actually i dont think i was talking about anything unrelated at all.
i don't believe testing is useful in natural medicine simply because natural medicine is aimed at individuals instead of mass markets.
however to find out if specific "treatments" or "therapies" work in each specific situation would require an individual to try the treatment or therapy to see if it works.
Well think again Hammurabi. It's unrelated because nobody is arguing against having to try something to determine it's efficacy. What was in question was how you get off saying something "works" if you only ever have a sample of one. Just because something is necessary to determine efficacy does not mean it is *sufficient* to determine it. Oh hey. I used those very words in my last post.
In that light, if you believe that replication can add no strength to a claim about natural medicine because they are so individualized - which I'll just say here is kind of insane but I get that you have kind of backed yourself into a corner.
Then neither you or anyone else can make statements about their efficacy to any non-zero degree of certainty. Which means nobodies statement about "natural medicines" is demonstrably better than anyone else's. Which means there is no useful place to get information about "natural medicines". Since even a loose definition of personalization would require matching qualities of one group of objects against the qualities of a person. "Natural medicines" can not be personalized in any useful way since the qualities of them can not be known with any pre-established certainty.
You've contradicted yourself. QED. Congratulations. I win a buck.
Your next move is likely to dispute the requirement of pre-existing knowledge but I'm sure even you can figure out how that leads nowhere.
Post a Comment