Creating Waves of Awareness
Hot Debate About Homeopathy - Pseudoscience
BMJ - Helping Doctors Make Better Decisions
Some have been following a debate on the British Medical Journal Website that began on July 11 and is still running.
It has been a running commentary as a result of article EDITOR'S CHOICE:
by Fiona Godlee Keep libel laws out of science
There are many issues involved including freedom of speech, libel, laws, freedom of choice, whether CAM and homeopathy should be funded, whether supporters of one side or another are "cherry-picking" their facts to prove a point and denying the other side. It goes on at length. You may be interested in viewing the thread and maybe posting some comments here.
Lionel Has Contributed To This Discussion <---- PLEASE READ IT
Some have been following a debate on the British Medical Journal Website that began on July 11 and is still running.
It has been a running commentary as a result of article EDITOR'S CHOICE:
by Fiona Godlee Keep libel laws out of science
There are many issues involved including freedom of speech, libel, laws, freedom of choice, whether CAM and homeopathy should be funded, whether supporters of one side or another are "cherry-picking" their facts to prove a point and denying the other side. It goes on at length. You may be interested in viewing the thread and maybe posting some comments here.
Lionel Has Contributed To This Discussion <---- PLEASE READ IT
Tags: BMJ, British-Medical-Journal, CAM, doctors, laws, libel, science
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Heidi Stevenson on -
Fascinating debate! And so full of wrongful, illogical, untrue, and egotistical statements.
So much can be understood from tone, and the tone of those writers who want CAM eliminated is almost always the same: condescending and mean. Statements like that of Leslie B. Rose, "The supporteers of CAM continually wail that research hasn't been carried out on their treatments," imply their point in their choice of words.
Referencing an advert showing a female patient with a male doctor, David J. Eedy stated that it, "...undermines the confidence the public always should have in the inviolability of the professional relationship." That, I think, is a perfect demonstration of modern hubris among allopaths.
The constant demand for RCTs is completely biased. Aside from the fact that RCTs can easily be shown to be deeply flawed - Vioxx anyone? - the claim that they are the best sort of study is based on absolutely nothing. It also ignores that very few things can be studied in that way. If RCT studies were the be-all and end-all, then why aren't they utilised in other scientific fields? The answer, of course, is obvious. There's no way to do them in most arenas. The hubris of those who demand RCTs in alternative medicine is astounding.
My comments are scattered, but I hope that we can get this topic rolling. It needs to be addressed.
© 2013 Created by Debby Bruck.
