NO! REALLY! Basic Science Should Inform Clinical Science
Last edited Fri Mar 13, 2015, 12:47 AM - Edit history (1)
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/basic-science-should-inform-clinical-science/
"...
At some point, however, there is a line below which you are no longer practicing SBM, but rather pseudoscience or witchcraft. Clear clinical evidence of lack of efficacy, or extreme scientific implausibility are below this line.
I can imagine, however, a scenario in which a treatment that seems highly implausible actually works by some unknown mechanism. In this case, however, the clinical evidence would have to be of such a nature that it offsets whatever basic science evidence says the treatment is implausible. The more implausible, the more rigorous the clinical evidence should be.
By contrast, CAM apologists want to promote treatments which are simultaneously highly implausible and not backed by rigorous clinical evidence. In fact they want to go out of their way to conduct only weak clinical studies that are of essentially no value in determining efficacy. Further they want to practice this type of unscientific medicine in a regulatory environment without a science-based standard of care.
Conducting clinical studies in this context is the very definition of a waste of resources. Even worse, such research is used to market unscientific treatments that most likely don’t work to a public which is likely to assume there are standards in place to protect them. An assumption which unfortunately is increasingly wrong.
..."
--------------------------------
How does a community allow CAM "therapies" to proliferate without dissension?
I live in Portland, Oregon, where it's rather unusual to point out the reality of the science of CAM "therapies." Still, even here, the majority know that they are not valid. However, silence hurts those who get sucked in to such scams.
I can't tell you how much suffering I have seen because of the scams pushed by Naturopaths, Acupuncturists, etc... and I can't tell how hard I've had to work to soothe the guilt of parents who fell for their scams once their kids received genuine treatment and made progress.
That's not to say that "science based medicine" has it all figured out. However, I will never lie to a family about a treatment's plausibility, and possibilities. The same cannot be said of the your typical scam provider.
It's time to stand up against health care scams!
= new reply since forum marked as read
I have been a Skeptics Guide to the Universe fan for years and never miss a podcast. Host Steve is an incredible person. He's hosted and post produced over an hour of podcast every single week for years without missing a week. The podcast is soon to celebrate ten years on the Net. Plus, it's all unscripted, and very entertaining.
Plus, he has his Neorologica Blog which you cited in your post. And then there's Science Based Medicine (a term he coined) which is much more than a Blog. It cites and explains medical research. That's on top of his day job as a teaching clinical neurologist at Yale.
I don't know how he does it all.
Happy to R&K
Regards.
on edit: Portland? Do you know Mark Crislip?
