What a great article!!! Fantastic Bryan. So very very true.

How scientific it is to give a prognosis I wonder. Doctors are trained to be "scientific" when in fact even prescribing drugs is less than scientific. And giving prognosis is very far from science.

Bryan,

There certainly is a placebo effect with prescription drugs, a very well recognised placebo effect.  That's why medicines must be tested in double blind trials, to correct for this placebo effect.  At applies to all forms of treatment, evidence based and alternative.

The BMJ study is very interesting and represents and important finding.  Its this sort of evidence that should guide clinical practise.  Doctors repsonsible for intensive care admissision should be made aware of this.  Thank heaven there are doctors actively carrying out this kind of research to better guide clinical decisions.

Obviously quite the opposite to a religion, which does not base its findings or practises on research evidence.  In fact I have not actually heard medicine be likened to a new religion.  You mention that "its been said..", but then again anyone could say that about anything.

Dear Bryan, thanks for the information.  Some interesting reading.  

I did come across this review of one of Dr Mendelsohn's books.  It does ring true of much of the writing style on this forum I think you'll agree.  The review is by a Joseph M. Miller.

"Whereas a calm, mature, and scholarly application of professional self-examination can readily uncover many areas for correction or modification in the practice of modern medicine, Robert Mendelsohn chooses instead to take the low road in an apparent effort to use shock therapy for the selling of his very private and dogmatic panaceas. What ensues is a boring and repetitive harangue which attacks frontally the patient-doctor relationship and tries ineffectually to foster a hodge-podge of confused views about the physician as a social and scientific manipulator of the patient's well being"

More or less could be directly applied to Lynne MgTaggart's "What Doctors don't tell you".

Bryan,

Being on opposite sides of the fence is no bad thing.  It is always healthy to have ones views challenged, it forces us to be sure of our own points of view.  This sort of debate is healthy and indeed, a strength and cornerstone of the scientific method, which is the absolute antithesis of "following blindly".

Yes the review is by a Doctor Joseph Miller.

Where I agree with you is that no one should blindly follow the advice of anyone, doctor, scientists, politician, alternative health practicioner.  That would simply not make good sense.  Always ask for evidence, ask pople to defend their claims and be suspicious of those who either cannot, or claim that such scrutiny does not apply to them.  

I admire any attempt to improve clinical practise and care using evidence based methods.  This is vital to ensure than standards of care are as good as they can be and that treatments remain evidence based, rather than based on the whims of the practicioner.

Where I disagree with your campaign is in the highly dogmatic view that a basic requirment for evidence is flawed, that modern medical practise is inherently flawed and that alternative medicines are anything more than untested claims.  I appreciate that your attacks are not against doctors per se, but I am unsure as to what it is your fear they represent?

Many of the claims made on this site and in (Dr?) Lyne McTaggart's book as simply factually wrong and massively overexaggerated.  They have all the hallmarks of a scare campaign, which ultimately prevents rational debate and tangible improvements in the healthcare system from taking place.  One has to be absolutely sure of all the evidence before promoting the idea that vaccination does more harm that good for example.  From what I have read, it appears that no only it this campaing not sure of its evidence, it doesn't provide it.

We may be on different sides of the fence, but I am happy with my position since it is evidence based, constantly revised and open to change when that evidence suggests it is necessary.  It is not based on a dogmatic campaign of often irrational fear directed at those most vulnerable and in need of clear guidance.

Best

H

Bryan,

I al of course familiar with Popperian method.  According to Demarcaion Theory, modern medical practise is both art and science.  Where is is evidence based, it is science, where is it based on clinical experience and judegment, it is more akin to an art.  Not so long ago, medicine was all art and no science, just like alternative medicine is today.  

Medical science is obviously more science than art, since it is the application of scientific (Popperian, among others) methods to the study of biolgical systems of relevance to medical treatments.  

One has to watch pharmaceutical companies, their trial data and their claims like hawks.  This is why their industry is the most regulated industry of all.  The 1968 Medicine Act was created specifically to minimise the risks of medicines that were unsafe getting into patients.  Of course, the regulatory authorities (MHRA) have to take great care when evaluating new medicines, which is exactly why well over 90% of all medicines in development never make it into patients- they simply cannot prove their effectiveness to the high standard requires.  Mistakes have been made, lessons learned.  

But to out right deny that any pahramceutical treamtents, simply becuase it has been developed by a pharmaceutical company (and not all have), is ludicrous.  It is simply not substantiated by the evidence.  Pharmaceuticals are a vital compenent of medical care, save lives and improve the quality of life for millions.  

It is wise to be suspicious of claims about health and treatments, whther they come from the pharmaceutical industry, or some other vested interest such as an author wishing to promote a book, an alternative practicioner wishing to leran a fee, or a herbal remedy manufacturing driven by precisely the same market forces that drive the pharmaceutical industry (although with one of the regulation).

One has to be pragmatic and understand how best to achieve evidence based treatment.  Much of the sentiment on this forum is based on dogma and an inherent anti-medicine stance that is nothing short of irrational.  It is good to criticise, but keep it within the boundaries of what can be demonstrated rather than what one is paranoid about.  You cannot on the one had, criticise mordern researh methods, then support treatments that are untested and unproven.  It appears that some people will support the use of almost anything if they are told it is "alternative" and be against anything that is called "conventional", demonstrating a lack of critical faculty and a truely dogmatic approach.  

That attitude, I suggest, is closer to a religion than anything it opposes.

Best

H

Bryan,

I al of course familiar with Popperian method.  According to Demarcaion Theory, modern medical practise is both art and science.  Where is is evidence based, it is science, where is it based on clinical experience and judegment, it is more akin to an art.  Not so long ago, medicine was all art and no science, just like alternative medicine is today.  

Medical science is obviously more science than art, since it is the application of scientific (Popperian, among others) methods to the study of biolgical systems of relevance to medical treatments.  

One has to watch pharmaceutical companies, their trial data and their claims like hawks.  This is why their industry is the most regulated industry of all.  The 1968 Medicine Act was created specifically to minimise the risks of medicines that were unsafe getting into patients.  Of course, the regulatory authorities (MHRA) have to take great care when evaluating new medicines, which is exactly why well over 90% of all medicines in development never make it into patients- they simply cannot prove their effectiveness to the high standard requires.  Mistakes have been made, lessons learned.  

But to out right deny that any pahramceutical treamtents, simply becuase it has been developed by a pharmaceutical company (and not all have), is ludicrous.  It is simply not substantiated by the evidence.  Pharmaceuticals are a vital compenent of medical care, save lives and improve the quality of life for millions.  

It is wise to be suspicious of claims about health and treatments, whther they come from the pharmaceutical industry, or some other vested interest such as an author wishing to promote a book, an alternative practicioner wishing to leran a fee, or a herbal remedy manufacturing driven by precisely the same market forces that drive the pharmaceutical industry (although with none of the regulation).

One has to be pragmatic and understand how best to achieve evidence based treatment.  Much of the sentiment on this forum is based on dogma and an inherent anti-medicine stance that is nothing short of irrational.  It is good to criticise, but keep it within the boundaries of what can be demonstrated rather than what one is paranoid about.  You cannot on the one had, criticise mordern researh methods, then support treatments that are untested and unproven.  It appears that some people will support the use of almost anything if they are told it is "alternative" and be against anything that is called "conventional", demonstrating a lack of critical faculty and a truely dogmatic approach.  

That attitude, I suggest, is closer to a religion than anything it opposes.

Best

H

It would be sad if our "cut and thrust" were to halt.  I admire the obvious benevolent aims of this site, and indeed, as someone from a scientific background, I find it refreshing to engage those of opposing views than to simply agree with those who agree with me.

Professionally, scientists almost never find others within their profession who agree with them uncritically, and one is always very suspicious of those that do.  But equally, we rarely come across people who challenge the very basis of evidence based methods.

I look forward to continued contribution to this forum.  Rest assured when I agree I will be open and say so, as I hope you will also.  When I disagree, I will use only evidence based arguments to defend my point of view.

Where else could such debates occur than on a forum such as this one?

I look forward to rational, constructive debate.

H

It's good to read about the parallel between the religious and medical industries.

The junk religion industry is rushed off its feet trying to save souls that don't exist.

The junk medical industry is rushed off its feet trying to save the bodies of people who won't lift a finger to save themselves.

Surgeries and hospitals are filled to over flowing. Governments are pouring more and more money down the medical black hole - to no avail. The health of the country is getting worse.

We live in strange times.

Never mind the fact that the health of the country is better than it has ever been.  That life expectancy is as long as it has even been, and increasing.  That childhood mortality is as low as it has even been.

The fact that we live for so long and in such good health (compared to any other time in history) is what makes these times so strange.