[lbo-talk] putting quackery to the test

[ravi]

At around 8/8/06 8:24 am, Doug Henwood wrote:
> 
> On Aug 8, 2006, at 7:50 AM, ravi wrote:
> 
>>> Both studies failed to show clinical efficacy. All this
>>> should mark a sea change in how the public views such treatments.
>>>
>>
>> Why? The real comparison should be to the efficacy of "mainstream"
>> medicine (henceforth referred to as professional-racket-medicine),
>> especially as a ratio of public and individual dollars spent.
> 
> But that's what the article reported - a comparison of hippie arthritis
> treatments to orthodox ones (and a placebo).
>

I didn't see any presentation of numbers along the lines of what I am
mentioning. What did I miss? Was there even any result offered on the
success and predictable success ratios of professional-racket medicine
to the amount of individual and public dollars poured into them?

What you are talking about above is a result that may demonstrate that
professional-racket medicine is more successful than hippie-medicine and
placebos. Well, if so, why not? Billions are spent on
professional-racket medicine, not to forget (as I mentioned), that
professional-racket medicine borrows at will (and to enormous profit)
from hippie-medicine (tribal remedies, ayurveda, etc). One would expect
it to show better results.

I am not even getting into questions of testing methodology here and
inherent issues of underdetermination, etc., which should at the least
induce a modicum of humility in any fair-minded presentation.


> The NIH isn't staffed by
> idiots.

Who is talking about NIH idiots? Quite the reverse is the case: the rest
of us (regular human beings i.e., non-"experts") are not idiots either,
and prefer not to be treated so.

	--ravi

-- 
Support something better than yourself: ;-)
PeTA:       http://www.peta.org/
GreenPeace: http://www.greenpeace.org/
If you have nothing better to do: http://platosbeard.org/