Talk:Alternative medicine/Archive 2

message: Most scientists would not dispute that acupuncture has some real pain control benefits, nor would RK.  This is no small point!  It is the only point.  The other concerns of RK  towards alternative medicine are totally irrelevant, in my opinion, towards this article under dispute.--Mr-Natural-Health 23:25, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  No small point! 

message: Okay, have it your way.  I will now move selectively support for alternative medicine out of these sections and put it where it belongs under support for alternative medicine.--Mr-Natural-Health 19:50, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't you think it would be more neutral if we kept the content under the existin headlines, not implying that it either supports or undermines AM. And wouldn't it also be better stylistically, as it would not fragment the information. --snoyes 19:59, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: It is called editing.  And, a proper edit, clarifies rather than distracts.  Further, the criticism section is presently bigger than the support section.  We shall see, just how many different arguments exists that tend to support Alternative medicine.--Mr-Natural-Health 20:18, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  (re-insert headlines, as it is POV to say that the content under the headlines either supports or undermines alternative medicine)  

message: : [critics] point out that the certainty of advocates is usually in direct proportion to the lack of peer-reviewed documentation.
C'mon, I'm dying to see the peer reviewed scientific research for that. Heck, it'd be an improvement just to have a named advocate who makes that claim, which I don't see either. Martin 00:38, 22 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reference, please 

message: If this new written aritcle merge nonsense is nothing but an underhanded attempt to get rid of the arguments in support of Alternative medicine, I am here to add them back.--Mr-Natural-Health 19:05, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge nonsense 

message: See Talk:Complementary and alternative medicine for a related discussion on a merge of this page with Complementary and alternative medicine.
68.167.191.104 00:01, 28 Dec 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  See CAM discussion for more on pros and cons of merger 

message: Mr Natural Health mistakenly put the following in the section for support of alternative medicine:
The final response to the above criticisms is that the opposition primarily assumes that alternative medicine works by magic and equates all branches of alternative medicine with quackery and health fraud. Professionalized alternative medicine no more works by magic than do prescription medications possess magical curative powers.  Quackery and health fraud is a legal matter where the law should be allowed to take its course.  The opposition turns a blind eye to health fraud committed by conventional medicine.  The list of very questionable conventional medical practices is quite long and includes such things as conventional hospitals soliciting the public to get expensive and totally unnecessary body scans, hormone replacement therapy, and annual mammograms.
:Nothing in this paragraph offers any support for alternative medicine! Didn't anyone notice this? Further, it is just a rant against most of western medicine, made by a man who claims that doctors murdered his parent with chemotheraphy.  This is not, to say the least, encyclopedia quality material, let alone NPOV. RK
Social critic Ivan Illich believes that Western and alternative medical practices are generally equally effective, for two reasons. First, Western practices are more effective at dealing with illnesses caused by microbes, whereas alternative practices are more effective at dealing with illnesses that are psychosomatic. Illich holds that Western and alternative practices are equally effective at dealing with illnesses that are self-limiting. (Illich 1976) In other words, Illich has suggested that conventional medicine treats illnesses that the human body would heal naturally all by itself without any form of treatment.
:Again, nothing in this paragraph offers any data which supports alternative medicine.  Again, didn't anyone notice?  Any most importantly, MNH dishonestly mis-states Illich's position; in fact, Illich is clearly suggesting that it is alternative medicine which can only treat an illness which would go away by itself. RK Jan 6, 2004
Adherents of alternative medicine claim that they only want to heal people; they have no interest in money or publicity. Thus they see no need to offer proof, and refuse to demonstrate their effectiveness in the One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge offered by the James Randi Educational Foundation.
:Um, how is this presenting data which supports all of, or even any of, alternative medicine?  This is just more of MNH's POV rants. RK
Some alternative treatment methods have been shown to be effective.
:Huh?  This vague claim, without any citations, is proof? Not even close.
Edzard Ernst writes in the Medical Journal of Australia that: "About half the general population in developed countries uses complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Yet many conventional healthcare professionals refuse to take CAM seriously.
:Millions of people believe that Satan exists. How is this proof of Satan? Millions of people believe that eating cheese cures gout? How is this proof or support of this people?  Millions of people used to believe in elves and trolls. Does this count as support for elves and trolls?  Come on. RK 02:15, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
A search on PubMed reveals that there are over 370,000 research papers classified as alternative medicine published since 1966 in the National Library of Medicine database (such as Kleijnen 1991, Linde 1997, Michalsen 2003, Gonsalkorale  2003, and Berga 2003). There are no publicly available statistics on exactly how many of these studies were controlled or double-blind peer-reviewed experiments.  They were, however, all published in research journals recognized by Medline.
:Huh? No one denies that many scientists have written papers which mention  alternative medicine. And these peer-reviewed, controlled studies show that alternative medicine doesn't work! RK 02:15, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
In another argument, the question of the effectiveness of various techniques used by practitioners of alternative medicine has to be considered independently for each method, as well as for each medical condition or disease treated.  When exploring the individual branches of alternative medicine four questions need to be answered. The answers to these questions will reveal whether or not each branch of alternative medicine is mostly quackery or something that the public should seriously consider using.
:Again, nothing in this paragraph offers any data which supports alternative medicine.  Again, didn't anyone notice?  These are just MNH's personal musings, and it contains no support, let alone proof. This is getting ridiculous. RK
In the United States, the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a division of the National Institutes of Health, provides funding and other support for research in alternative medicine.
: HEre MNH proves that some organization is spending a lot of money on the subject. Ok...and some organizations also spend money on God, Satan and even on Dungeons and Dragons. So what?  How does this support the claims of alternative medicine proponents?  Nothing written in this paragraoh offers any support at all. RK 02:23, Jan 6, 2004 (UTC)
Some of the strongest support for the value of clinical experience in alternative medicine comes from conventional physicians who have voiced their criticisms of evidence-based medicine (Tonelli 2001, Downing 2003).  These physicians  while arguing about their need to apply population evidence to the patient standing before them are in effect supporting the value of eclectic branches of alternative medicine which place great value upon the clinical experience of the practitioner.
:So we have anecdotes with no proof, and that somehow overturns evidence and proof?  This by you is support? 
The boundary lines between alternative and mainstream medicine have changed over time. Methods once considered alternative have later been adopted by conventional medicine as physicians gradually incorporate effective branches of alternative medicine of treatment in their conventional medical practices. Supporters of alternative methods suggest that much of what is currently called alternative medicine will be similarly assimilated by the mainstream in the future.
:Soryy, but you missed the point. These studies have also disproven the vast majority of alternative medicine technqiues. For those techniques which were proven in controlled, peer-reviewed studies, these are not alternative by any definition of the word. Your argument literally ends with "Maybe someday, someone will prove that my beliefs are true." This is not support of alternative medicine. It is only wishful thinking. RK
An argument can be made that it is not so much a question of proving what is right about alternative medicine, but rather in pointing out what is specifically wrong with conventional medicine....
:Again, no support, but just an anti-science POV rant from MNH.
=== User:RK vs. User:Mr-Natural-Health ===
RK has once again has decided to singled handedly destroy the work of several people that took several weeks of discussions to create in Alternative medicine.  I have supported with numerous references and citations every argument made in support of alternative medicine.  RK has not supported a single one of his obviously POV comments. An article about a perfectly legal subject called alternative medicine should obviously be in support of it.  Health Sciences and Medicine appear to be as poorly organized and written as is Alternative medicine.  Alternative medicine currents suffers from the antics of RK and others who are unable to deal with the reality of alternative medicine.  RK has been totally unable to articulate and support with references a rational argument against alternative medicine. Why doesn't RK try to clean up  Health Sciences and Medicine rather than constantly work at destroying Alternative medicine? -- 12.77.6.54 15:12, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is non-supporting material being claimed as support? 

message: RK has once again has decided to singled handedly destroy the work of several people that took several weeks of discussions to create in Alternative medicine.  I have supported with numerous references and citations every argument made in support of alternative medicine.  RK has not supported a single one of his obviously POV comments. An article about a perfectly legal subject called alternative medicine should obviously be in support of it.  Health Sciences and Medicine appear to be as poorly organized and written as is Alternative medicine.  Alternative medicine currents suffers from the antics of RK and others who are unable to deal with the reality of alternative medicine.  RK has been totally unable to articulate and support with references a rational argument against alternative medicine. Why doesn't RK try to clean up  Health Sciences and Medicine rather than constantly work at destroying Alternative medicine? -- 12.77.6.54 15:12, 6 Jan 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:RK vs. User:Mr-Natural-Health