Posted by Klavot on March 28, 2007, at 13:01:12
In reply to Re: neighbourhood, posted by Meri-Tuuli on March 27, 2007, at 14:04:07
> I mean, both alternative stuff and conventional stuff should be both practised and should be both intertwined - clearly the altnerative stuff for prevention and general health and the conventional stuff for 'crisis intervention' like a heart attack.
Forget for a moment the issue of orthomolecular medicine. I do not agree with implementing alternative treatments simply for the sake of using alternative treatments. What does "alternative" mean? I would understand "alternative" to be the complement of "conventional", which is to say "evidence-based". Conventional medicine is not static; alternative treatments may become conventional as and when there is evidence to support their safety and efficacy. Likewise conventional treatments may be relegated to the status of "alternative" as and when they are found to be bogus. It is wrong to encourage the use of treatments which have no evidence to back up their safety or efficacy.
Some alternative treatments, for example homeopathy, simply do not work. The principles which underlie homeopathy violate some of the basic laws of chemistry and physics.
If a treatment works beyond placebo, then it should be possible to demonstrate that fact. Most alternative treatments are alternative simply because their practitioners are consistently unable to demonstrate efficacy.
Klavot
poster:Klavot
thread:744072
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/alter/20070320/msgs/744967.html