How "woo" graduates to "not woo".

[Warren Stupidity]

Data from a late-breaking abstract presented at the International Liver Congress 2014 identifies a new compound, SBEL1, that has the ability to inhibit hepatitis C virus (HCV) activity in cells at several points in the virus' lifecycle.

SBEL1 is a compound isolated from Chinese herbal medicines that was found to inhibit HCV activity by approximately 90 percent. SBEL1 is extracted from a herb found in certain regions of Taiwan and Southern China. In Chinese medicine, it is used to treat sore throats and inflammations. The function of SBEL1 within the plant is unknown and its role and origins are currently being investigated.

Scientists pre-treated human liver cells in vitro with SBEL1 prior to HCV infection and found that SBEL1 pre-treated cells contained 23 percent less HCV protein than the control, suggesting that SBEL1 blocks virus entry. The liver cells transfected with an HCV internal ribosome entry site (IRES)-driven luciferase reporter that were treated with SBEL1 reduced reporter activity by 50 percent compared to control. This suggests that that SBEL1 inhibits IRES-mediated translation, a critical process for viral protein production.

http://www.infectioncontroltoday.com/news/2014/04/new-chinese-herbal-medicine-shows-significant-potential-in-treating-hepatitis-c.aspx

It is really simple: subject your favorite woo to the same rigorous peer reviewed methodologies as other medicines and medical procedures.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

1. That's sort of a eurocentric version of declaring what 'woo' is.

Like saying North America wasn't around until it was 'discovered' by Europeans. Or that gravity wasn't real until Newton started working out how it worked.

If something works, it works whether or not you've subjected it to rigorous peer reviewed methodologies. Heck, my drug guide is chock full of medicines we use that still don't have a known 'method of action'.

Reality is what it is, whether or not humans understand it.

And don't get me wrong, I'm all in favour of us understanding it, since that means we can use it more effectively.

But science isn't about going around calling things 'woo' just because you haven't tested them yet. It's about saying things are 'unproven', 'proven', or 'disproven'. Save the 'woo' accusations for the disproven, not the unproven or untested.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. No really it is only "eurocentric' if one thinks that the scientific method is simply a cultural

perspective.

If something works, it works whether or not you've subjected it to rigorous peer reviewed methodologies. Heck, my drug guide is chock full of medicines we use that still don't have a known 'method of action'.

That just either begs the question of how to determine "if something works" or demonstrates ignorance about how peer reviewed controlled reproducible efficacy studies work, what they are, and why they are the best process we have on this planet at this time for understanding "if something works".

Advocates for alternative medicines should embrace studies like this instead of running away from them.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

71. I'm not running anywhere.

Nor in fact am I an advocate for alternative medicines, per se. I ask for studies to be performed *before* the woo label gets tossed around is all.

[jollyreaper2112]

7. yeah but

If something works, it works whether or not you've subjected it to rigorous peer reviewed methodologies. Heck, my drug guide is chock full of medicines we use that still don't have a known 'method of action'.


But those drugs were subject to double-blind studies. It's not anecdote or folk remedy, it's science. And that is part of the rigorous peer review.

For example, there's no mechanism to explain why healing magnets should work. But if a double-blind proved them effective, then it's just a matter of finding the mechanism. Healing magnets don't work so there's no need to look for a cause for an effect that doesn't exist.

Ignorant skepticism is another word for being closed-minded. But don't be so open-minded your brain falls out.

[NuclearDem]

13. If it works effectively, then it was never woo in the first place.

Pseudoscience produces inconsistent results with tests that can't be replicated independently.

Person A claims they saw a ghost in their house at midnight during a full moon. If Persons B through E cannot see a ghost in the same house also during a full moon at midnight, or Person A cannot see it again when asked to do so, then we're talking about pseudoscience.

Also, minor nitpick, proof is only a concept in math, law, and philosophy. Not being a jerk, just the misuse of terms is a pet peeve of mine.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

69. I agree.

But that doesn't prevent people from calling it 'woo', without even taking the time to do properly designed studies to figure out if it should be called 'woo'. Which was the entire point of my comment - don't label something out of ignorance. Be skeptical, but actually figure out whether or not there's something there that you're just ignorant of.

And I consider all other sciences to be largely derivative of math. As an old prof used to say, physics is math with its clothes on, chemistry is a subset of physics, and geology just applied physics and chemistry.

[jeff47]

16. We don't have to understand the method of action to say it works.

If something works, it works whether or not you've subjected it to rigorous peer reviewed methodologies. Heck, my drug guide is chock full of medicines we use that still don't have a known 'method of action'.

We don't have to understand the method of action to say it works. The "rigorous peer reviewed methodologies" you describe do not find the method of action. They find whether or not a particular compound or set of compounds really does anything.

Once we know the compound(s) do something, then it's medicine. Finding a method of action might reveal a better medicine, or help us learn more about how our bodies work. But method of action is not required to call it medicine.

[psiman]

30. I bet you subsribe to "Social Text" and believe everything it prints

Nice self-pitying melt down at the Daily Kos, by the way.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

67. I have no idea what 'Social Text' is.

Nor do I really care.

Nor was there any 'self-pity' in my last post over at DK. It was exasperation with the same sort of factional keyboard commandos it turns out you've got here. The 'team blue, no matter what they do' crowd. I simply got tired of putting up with their crap, especially when one of the featured writers on site decided to lump anti-corporatist lefties with people who hate the troops and various right wing idiocies. Which was all the more ironic since I'd been vocally opposed to the 'anti-troops' diary that set her off, and so the ignorant who then piled on in the comments under that diary again attacked me as hating on the troops when I'd done nothing of the kind.

[Warpy]

37. The Chinese, themselves, discarding a lot of things that didn't stand up

to the scientific method. They're also sharing their findings.

For one example, acupuncture has been incredibly streamlined. For another, herbal things that don't work and require endangered species are no longer part of their pharmacopeia, although a black market for it continues. Eventually, that will die out as people realize Viagra works better.

A lot of official medicine started out as herbalism, digitalis being only one example. The plant is still used to produce the refined medication because it's a complicated alkaloid that the plants produce easily but would require a long and expensive process to duplicate chemically.

The problem with a lot of the stuff now labeled woo like homeopathy and crystal healing have not stood up to testing. They don't work and rely on a hit and miss placebo effect.

If we could control or even predict the placebo effect beyond a certain percentage of a large sample group we could harness it. As yet, that is impossible and the woo remains for people who really aren't terribly ill. Those of us who are require real drugs.

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

70. Which is fine.

I myself consider certain things 'woo'. After I've found well-designed studies about them in the literature showing them to have no statistical significance. And I'm still open to revisiting that appellation if further studies come out that show they do have some benefit, but it only applies to some specific sub-population that share some commonality. My only objection is to the generalized use of 'woo' in the absence of detailed and well-designed studies discrediting any specific form of therapy.

[X_Digger]

2. K&R n/t

[markbark]

4. Perfect example

of what Tim Minchin was on about.

"Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been tested and proven to work? 'Medicine'"

[Nevernose]

5. Slight correction:

"Not woo" is also commonly referred to as "medicine."

[tridim]

6. By rational people, sure. By big-pharma? Not a chance.

Are vitamin-packed greens "medicine"?

Because every day when I blend these greens into a liquid, they become instant "woo" to a lot of ignorant people.

[jollyreaper2112]

8. depends on your claim

All nutritionists hail leafy greens. Does juicing or blending make the nutrients more bio-available? Unproven. Spinach is loaded with iron but gut absorption rates are supposed to be low. More testing needs to be done. Table salt is made of chlorine and sodium, both lethal to humans, but in the form of salt the constituent atoms aren't separating.

Walking is good for you. Will it cure cancer? That's a dubious claim. But maybe exercise keeps the immune system healthy and couldn't hurt.

[cleanhippie]

9. Just what do you claim your blended greens do?

Its not the greens that are woo, its the claims people make about their efficacy. Ive no idea what you claim they do, so I cannot call it "woo".

Care to state just what you think your blended greens are doing for your health?

[tridim]

14. Same thing non-blended greens do for anyone's health.

Provide high-quality nutrition for the body.

Don't worry, I'm not going to make spinach gas and inhale it.

[Scootaloo]

51. I've never seen "eating liquid kale" classed as "woo"

After all, science already knows all about the B12, vitamin C, and iron in these vegetables, and that these compounds are good for your health when ingested... which is how you know that.

Now if you want to insist that your creme de la collard cures acne, prevents the collon cold, or opens your chakras...

[tridim]

58. There is anti-woo, woo all over the place...

http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist.com/how-green-smoothies-can-devastate-your-health/

[jeff47]

12. That depends on the claims about them.

"I feel better after drinking it" doesn't make it "not-woo". You'd have to do studies showing a benefit beyond background noise. Considering recent studies are calling into question the benefit of large doses of vitamins from any source, we should probably do such studies before claiming it's medicine.

However, "I feel better after drinking it" is plenty of reason to chug away until such studies are done.

[hack89]

26. If you are drinking those greens for good nutrition it is not woo

if you are drinking it specifically to cure cancer, it is woo.

[tridim]

34. What about drinking it to ~prevent~ cancer and for general health?

Does that pass your test? Whose test does it have to pass before it is acceptable, the government's?

[hack89]

39. It is medically proven that the right diet can prevent certain cancers

there have been plenty of studies. That is why it is not woo. So yes, it passes my test.

If some quack were to tell me that it will cure me of cancer, then it is woo.

[tridim]

43. Well yea, there is no "cure for cancer"

Nor is there a single definition of "cancer".

So in the case of quacks, the statement "I have a cure for cancer" is the woo, not the remedy, whatever it may be.

Can we just call it quackery (as it has always been called) and drop the woo?

[jollyreaper2112]

10. debunk

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Main_Page

Good source

Woo generally contains most of the following characteristics:
A simple idea that purports to be the one answer to many problems (often including diseases)
A "scientific-sounding" reason for how it works, but little to no actual science behind it; for example, quote mines of studies that if bent enough could be described in such a way to support it, outright misapplication of studies, or words that sound scientific but make no sense in the context they are used in
It involves the supernatural and paranormal (not necessarily)
A claim of persecution, usually perpetrated by the government or the pharmaceutical, medical, or scientific community (see Galileo gambit)
An invocation of a scientific authority
Prefers to use abundant testimonials over actual scientific research
A claim that scientists are blind to the discovery, despite attempts to alert them
A disdain for objective, randomized experimental controls, especially double-blind testing (which are kind of what makes epidemiology actually, y'know, work)
And, usually, an offer to share the knowledge for a price.

Woo is usually not the description of an effect but of the explanation as to why the effect occurs. For example, homeopathy may occasionally give results, but as a placebo — the explanations for these occasional results, e.g. water memory, are woo.
Woo is used to blind or distract an audience from a real explanation or to discourage people from delving deeper into the subject to find a more realistic explanation. You can't make money if nobody buys your bullshit. (As such, "woo" that has zero paying customers is more like just ordinary batshit crazy.)

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. I wouldn't class herbal medicine as 'woo'

A particular case may be unproven; it may have side-effects; it may actually be a placebo effect at work. But the mechanism for a possible genuine effect is known - plants contain a lot of chemicals that can affect the human body. It's things involving pathways that don't exist, molecules no longer in the water, forces that cannot be detected, telepathy, souls and so on that are just 'woo'.

[Warren Stupidity]

18. I won't nit pick. I was using the term generically in the way it is being used in DU's "woo-war".

[Skidmore]

15. And then there are these fine products of science:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_withdrawn_drugs

Not all "woo" is bad and not all "science" is good. F

[Warren Stupidity]

20. Yes indeed. Which is why the scientific methods used for evaluation are not static.

Instead, evidence and data can trump any claimed results. The point is to engage in the process.

[Zorra]

17. Herbs have been used by healers to treat illnesses and wounds successfully for

many centuries.

http://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Validation-Herbal-Medicine-Daniel/dp/0879835346

[Warren Stupidity]

19. which is why alternative medicine should embrace testing not run away from it.

And again "treated successfully" begs the question of how we can know if remedy x is successful or not.

[cui bono]

54. If there is an aversion to testing I think it's more about regulating and control than fear

of being found useless.

Big Pharma wants to either control or get rid of alternative medicine. They don't want to lose profits to them. If alternative medicines become part of the system that Big Pharma controls then the consumers lose.

I'm pretty much speculating here from what I've heard about Big Pharma wanting things labeled or not allowing them labeled. Same as when the big food companies didn't want things labeled as organic or cattle ranchers being told by the govt to not test for mad cow disease because the big beef companies didn't want them to be able to label their beef as tested and free from mad cow disease.

If the huge companies don't want to look bad they can make a better product.

[DeSwiss]

21. Mother Nature had 4.5 billion years to get ready for us.

- She holds ALL the cards. We're all amateurs compared to Her, and rank amateurs at that.

K&R

[center][/center]


''Modern science is based upon the principle: 'Give us one free miracle and we'll explain all the rest.''' ~Terrence McKenna

[cthulu2016]

25. Mourning Dove's statement is religious in nature, and a denial of evolution

There is no method or mechanism by which the plant world would have evolved treatments for every disease.

Creationism and intelligent design from native Americans is precisely as stupid and useless as creationism and intelligent design from white people.

[arcane1]

32. Indeed. It seems that if a claim is old and non-European, it's automatically valid and true.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

27. I'm afraid Mourning Dove's theory of existence is nonsense.

The claim that every disease has an herb to cure it is simply false.

[DeSwiss]

28. Prove it. n/t

[eShirl]

46. Prove it does and tell us what herb cures Alzheimer's.

What herb cures Type I diabetes?
What herb cures Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease?

[DeSwiss]

49. You'll need to ask the source. n/t

[eShirl]

63. That's what I thought.

[Dr. Strange]

77. The source is dead.

She apparently didn't take the right herb.

[DeSwiss]

78. Yeah if she'd only eaten more Dandelions, she'd be 130 today. n/t

[chrisa]

50. You can't prove a negative. That's impossible.

The burden of proof is on the claim that all diseases have an herb to cure it. That can be proven or disproven. I can say right off the bat that the claim is wrong. It's wrong because herbs do not exist for us to use - they either exist because they evolved that way, and then we put them to use, or because of human intervention.

The quote is like saying dogs came into existence only because humans needed a companion. It's pure nonsense. Humans selectively bred / trained dogs to be our companions.

[idendoit]

85. If it is impossible to prove a negative....

...Occam's Razor tells us it would be equally impossible to prove a positive. How would you know why herbs exsist?

[Atman]

35. Well, she didn't have a profit motive.

Unless keeping us alive was the motive. As opposed to killing us for shareholder value.

[DeSwiss]

40. Of course She has a motive.

- We're made up of everything She is. We ARE Her.

Here are three more herbal remedies I can think of right off the bat:

{click 'em}

[Atman]

42. I agree...but different kind of profit.

[Humanist_Activist]

47. While Mourning Dove's quote is nice feel good stuff, its also BS I'm afraid...

first off its creationism, and second off, well, its creationism, oh, and factually wrong.

[greyl]

87. You're off by about 9.3 billion years.

Why so Earth-centric?

[DeSwiss]

89. All. Are. One.

- Differentiation is one of reality's best illusions.

''Everyone sits in the prison of his own ideas. A human being is a part of the whole called by us "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as thing separated from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.''

~Albert Einstein

[center][/center]

[progressoid]

22. Just gimme some Rhino horn powder for my Johnson.

[ErikJ]

29. +1000. THAT woo is making rhinos extinct--and tigers--and many others.

Last edited Mon Apr 14, 2014, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)

Somehow the Chinese have to be educated that they are just woo woo meds.

[Atman]

36. Much of China is still and "ancient" culture.

It's a big country! Lots of people still holding on the old ways, just as they do in America's so-called "heartland."

[arcane1]

44. If it's stiff and cylidrical, it MUST be good for erections!

It makes perfect sense!

[Spider Jerusalem]

23. Woo: chiropractic, homeopathy, reiki, healing crystals, antivaccine nuttery.

Not woo: herbal medicine (which actually works to some extent for some things; aspirin comes from willow bark, for instance). Although it's also pretty clear no-one was pushing Chinese herbal medicine as a treatment for hep C, either ("for inflammation and sore throats"?)

[psiman]

33. I'd buy into this

Herbal remedies can be acceptable, so long as they are tested under rigorous conditions to demonstrate reliable effectiveness above placebo.

Of course one of the major issues with herbals is that dosing can be unreliable in the absence of a way to quantify the active principle, so it is a good thing when the pharmaceutical folks (who tend to be good people even when their managers are the distilled essence of evil conniving swine) get together and figure out the details.

Humans have been running uncontrolled experiments in the wild for two million years, and a great deal of folk wisdom has been gathered. It is good to capture and record that wisdom, and it is essential to establish ways to do this without swindling defenseless foreign peoples of their patrimony.

[callous taoboy]

61. I've generally been leary of chiropractors, and I had a bad experience

with one many years ago who was clearly a huckster. However, I have a herniated disc, something which has caused me almost constant, low-level pain for years. Two people I work with who suffer from the same thing recommended I try this local chiropractor. I've seen him three times for adjustments, and I'll be damned if I haven't been pain free ever since.

So I'm not as willing any more to write off chiropractors. Like I said, there are probably some that are quacks. Not the guy I'm going to.

[tblue37]

64. Actually, I ready a study about 20 years ago that said chiropractic

helps lower back problems of certain types, and doctors actually recommend it for that.

But I also read a chiropractic newsletter around 30 years ago (my curiosity is insatiable, so I read a lot of odd things) with an article by a chiropractor who went around the country giving seminars to teach other chiropractors how to wring more money out of their clients--and many of the methods were by selling woo to the gullible.

[Spider Jerusalem]

68. Chiropractic claims that illness is caused by pockets of negative energy...

or "subluxations" that can be removed through chiropractic adjustment. Which is woo. It may be beneficial for some people and for some conditions, but the premise it's based on is still quackery.

[callous taoboy]

73. My chiropractor pushes no woo.

Just straight up adjustments, nice popping sounds in the spine, walk out feeling great.

[PADemD]

79. Subluxation

Subluxation is the dislocation of a joint or organ. The term is used in many medical specialties, including orthopedics, dentistry, and ophthalmology. How is that "woo?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subluxation

[Spider Jerusalem]

82. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebral_subluxation

[PADemD]

84. ...

Although some chiropractic associations and colleges support the concept of subluxation,[1] many in the chiropractic profession reject it and shun the use of this term as a diagnosis[1][4] In the United States and in Canada the term nonallopathic lesion is commonly used in place of subluxation as a diagnosis, and is considered a more accurate descriptor of lesions that chiropractors treat most commonly.[5]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebral_subluxation

[PADemD]

80. Not Woo: Reiki

Energy healing: a complementary treatment for orthopaedic and other conditions.
DiNucci EM.

Abstract

Complementary and alternative therapies continue to grow in popularity among healthcare consumers. Among those modalities is energy healing (EH) (Eisenberg et al., 1998). EH is an adjunctive treatment that is noninvasive and poses little downside risk to patients. Well more than 50 major hospitals and clinics throughout the United States offer EH to patients (DiNucci, research table on healthcare facilities that offer Reiki, unpublished data, 2002). The National Institutes of Health is funding numerous EH studies that are examining its effects on a variety of conditions, including temporomandibular joint disorders, wrist fractures, cardiovascular health, cancer, wound healing, neonatal stress, pain, fibromyalgia, and AIDS (National Institutes of Health, 2004a). Several well-designed studies to date show significant outcomes for such conditions as wound healing (Grad, 1965) and advanced AIDS (Sicher, Targ, Moore, & Smith, 1998), and positive results for pain and anxiety (Aetna IntelliHealth, 2003a; Wardell, Weymouth, 2004), among others (Gallob, 2003). It is also suggested that EH may have positive effects on various orthopaedic conditions, including fracture healing, arthritis, and muscle and connective tissue (Prestwood, 2003). Because negative outcomes risk is at or near zero throughout the literature, EH is a candidate for use on many medical conditions.

PMID:
16056170
[PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16056170

I've used Reiki on myself and others, including cancer patients. It is not a cure for disease, but it sure works great on headaches, nausea, stress, and even hiccups.

[Spider Jerusalem]

83. Just because there is some observable placebo effect doesn't mean it's not woo.

[mathematic]

24. I think it's suspicious that they don't name the plant.

I'll also note that this wasn't a test that the traditional drug was effective in treating what it claims to treat, or even in treating hepatitis C.

I think the most important thing that gets lost in the "natural herbs are/aren't woo" discussion is that if the herbs do treat something it's because of their chemical composition, not due to any spiritual magic, oneness with the universe, peace and comity with all the other plants and animals of creation, or inherent anti-authoritarian, anti-european, anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist practical symbolism. It's just a freakin' plant, people!

[A Simple Game]

31. Are placebos woo? They can be very effective. n/t

[psiman]

38. That is why we need to be careful

Spontaneous remission is a very real jawn: it has been estimate that about one case in five of breast cancer could heal without intervention. This provides naturopaths with a steady stream of "Doctor Woo cured my cancer with vitamins" testimonials. But if you seek naturopathic treatment for pancreatic cancer you are signing your own death warrant: just look what happened to Steve Jobs.

That is why, for a remedy to be accepted as reputable it must reliable produce good outcomes at a rate that is not consistent with raw chance.

[A Simple Game]

41. I was thinking mostly about medication for depression. Quite a bit of evidence there.

Even when it is known that the medication is a placebo, it often still works.

[tblue37]

65. A Danish study debunked the placebo effect.

"Researchers Debunk Placebo Effect, Saying It's Only a Myth":

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/05/23/health/23CND-PLAC.html

[A Simple Game]

72. Or are they all placebos?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/treating-depression-is-there-a-placebo-effect/

[Nine]

74. "Placebo Effect Debunked" sounds like an Onion headline. :) (nt)

[Spitfire of ATJ]

45. Some of these establishment types are sceptics that water is wet.

[Humanist_Activist]

48. A skeptic should be open to new evidence about, well anything...

but also be aware that humans are flawed, and so are our senses, so we must have rigorous methodology to try to determine what is real and what isn't. That's where the scientific method comes in.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

52. Some of these guys are bought off by Big Pharma.

[Bluenorthwest]

53. Here's the deal. I have problems with the arrogance of those who present 'science' as a

perfected opposite of 'woo'. The OP, for example, explains how he says 'woo' becomes 'not woo' but of course fails to address how 'science' becomes 'woo' which it very often does. Example being the 'scientific and medical consensus' for many decades that being gay was a disease or disorder, which they could quantify and then 'treat' with electroshock or lobotomy or ice water tortures. All of that 'science' was peer reviewed and upheld for decade after decade.
Sure, everyone is wrong at times, but the folks who wander around wearing a cap that says 'Until the 70's we thought gay people had a disease' who mock others for having beliefs they don't like forget to integrate into their world view the fact that the 'science' has been so wrong so many times, practiced with inhumanity and certainty that only the arrogant or the faithful are capable of.
I just don't see the folks who touted blood letting and lobotomizing gay people and 'hysterical women' as having the standing to engage in disdain for any freaking thing on earth.
What science believes is often just a faith based thing. Scientific method lead to the conclusion that gay people had a disorder which was curable, the Marcus and Michelle Bachman religious method oddly comes to that very same conclusion.

[cui bono]

56. There's only one thing in your post that I have a problem with...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1018584311

[Humanist_Activist]

57. You bring up discredited science, that is all you are doing, people are flawed and biased...

the scientific method is a counter to that, indeed the anti-gay stuff you deride as "scientific" in the past is now considered woo because people couldn't let go of their biases and look at the actual evidence.

Hence why science is the opposite of woo, the consensus CHANGES when new evidence comes in. I don't know why you think this is an argument against science, you are actually arguing FOR it, or at least its methodology.

[Warren Stupidity]

81. it is a process, not a static set of beliefs.

"the consensus" on anything can change tomorrow. The process for evaluating efficacy through repeatable controlled experimentation has all sorts of problems, but it is simply the best mechanism we have for objective evaluation of what works, and what doesn't.

Scientific method lead to the conclusion that gay people had a disorder which was curable.

Not really. That is a poor example. Psychiatry classified homosexuality as a mental disorder because of prevailing prejudices, not because there was valid evidence. If you want to bring up some of the real problems you might want to look into the problem of reproducibility over time, or the issues with confirmation bias. Certainly another valid criticism is the cost structure for FDA approval, which has basically all the elements of barrier to entry collusion between a regulatory body and an established cartel.

[cui bono]

55. Who says herbal medicine is woo?

That's ridiculous.

Plenty of Big Pharma drugs were created due to knowing that certain ingredients performed a certain way and so they replicated it with synthetics so they could profit.

[Electric Monk]

59. Yes. What do we call 'alternative medicine' that's been proven to work? Medicine.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024812397

[Shoulders of Giants]

60. When The Miz takes Ric Flair's Gimmick.

[callous taoboy]

62. Our judicial system would never allow woo testimony.

But last time I presented this idea in an O.P. I got smacked around pretty hard.

[eridani]

66. Old medical traditions are in no sense "woo"

Medicine was strictly empirical long before it was ever scientific. Willow bark tea was used for headaches long before salicylic acid and derivatives were ever turned into aspirin, and people used aspirin long before these compounds were discovered to inhibit the prostaglandin synthesis involved in pain perception. Which of course doesn't mean that the middle European hedge witches from whom I'm descended were right when they said that their preparations worked because the willow tree was sacred to St. Stephen, patron saint of headaches, or whatever.

I can imagine one saying to another "Psst..you can leave the eye of newt out of the heart strengthening potion, but never leave out the foxglove." These traditions have always been a mix of things that work, things that don't work, and various explanatory stories to make everything easier to remember. Over time, things that don't work get dropped, and things that work stay.

[Warren Stupidity]

76. So how do you know which traditional remedies are bullshit and which arent?

[eridani]

86. Controlled experiments are the best test

But anecdotal experience can be helpful. Years ago a friend recommended that I try the white dandelion exudation on plantars warts, and it worked. There is a serious disincentive to do formal controlled tests on remedies like this because they can't be patented.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. no shit. But the role for anecdotal experience is to identify what to test.

[Octafish]

75. Relativity

How can time pass slower the faster you move? Impossible.

[pnwmom]

88. And when should longstanding "medical treatment" be demoted to "woo"?

Last edited Wed Apr 16, 2014, 04:20 AM - Edit history (2)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/health/common-knee-surgery-does-very-little-for-some-study-suggests.html

A popular surgical procedure worked no better than fake operations in helping people with one type of common knee problem, suggesting that thousands of people may be undergoing unnecessary surgery, a new study in The New England Journal of Medicine reports.

A study compared a common surgical repair to the meniscus and a simulated surgery. The outcomes matched.
The unusual study involved people with a torn meniscus, crescent-shaped cartilage that helps cushion and stabilize knees. Arthroscopic surgery on the meniscus is the most common orthopedic procedure in the United States, performed, the study said, about 700,000 times a year at an estimated cost of $4 billion.

The study, conducted in Finland, involved a small subset of meniscal tears. But experts, including some orthopedic surgeons, said the study added to other recent research suggesting that meniscal surgery should be aimed at a narrower group of patients; that for many, options like physical therapy may be as good.

SNIP

The new research builds on a groundbreaking 2002 Texas study, showing that patients receiving arthroscopy for knee osteoarthritis fared no better than those receiving sham surgery. A 2008 Canadian study found that patients undergoing surgery for knee arthritis did no better than those having physical therapy and taking medication. Now many surgeons have stopped operating on patients with only knee arthritis.

SNIP

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/torn-meniscus-treatments-physical-therapy-just-as-good-as-surgery-says-study/

However, an Australian preventive medicine expert wrote in an accompanying editorial published in the same journal that that the study's results should change practice. Therapy "is a reasonable first strategy, with surgery reserved for the minority who don't have improvement," wrote Dr. Rachelle Buchbinder of Monash University in Melbourne.

"Currently, millions of people are being exposed to potential risks associated with a treatment that may or may not offer specific benefit, and the costs are substantial," she added.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. Absolutely. Your point illustrates that it is

indeed a two way street and a dynamic process

[Orrex]

92. You can have my phrenology mannequin when you pry it from my cold, dead hands