>I completely agree with this. I'd like to see rigorous trials of
>alternative therapies, but as far as I know, there have been very
>few. Am I wrong? And if I'm not wrong, why have there been so few
>trials?
>
>Doug
Because a significant number of alternative therapists and their advocates reject the methods as well as the contents associated with traditional science, including the gold standard of a Randomized Control Trial (RCT). Their lack willingness to subject their treatments to basic science is, sometimes, quite remarkable.
And even when they do participate, the quality of the studies done is low and the studies biased. I was involved in a meta-analysis project for acupuncture several years ago (BTW, it was found to be somewhat effective as an analgesic, no one knows why, sensory overload 'canceling' pain signals is one theory) and the quality of the studies was variable. Lots of them out there, few that were any good.
As for drinking urine, in epidimology a causal relationship in disease or treatment needs three things;
1) temporal sequence of cause then effect 2) a dose/response reaction 3) an underlying physiological relationship
If drinking your pee has all these benefits it would have to meet these criteria before I'm taking a cup to the bathroom.
A caveat for the comments I know I'm going to get, not every relationship in medicine meets those 3 criteria. That doesn't excuse sloppy science on the part of alternative therapies.
PC
N Paul Childs 5967-157 Avenue Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5Y 2P3
e-fax 413-683-9725 _______________________________________________________ 'Gee thanks, your validation means oh, so much to me'.
-Art 'Bones' MacDesalavo