










Quackbuster causes too much flak for university2. Comment #49806 by GodlessHeathen on June 13, 2007 at 2:55 pm
3. Comment #49810 by D'Arcy on June 13, 2007 at 3:23 pm
4. Comment #49811 by D'Arcy on June 13, 2007 at 3:27 pm
5. Comment #49812 by Bonzai on June 13, 2007 at 3:37 pm
To be fair, not only the 'alternative" medicine crowd resort to bully tactics. In my school a well known researcher was fired because she wrote some papers saying that certain drugs manufactured by a big pharmaceutical company had nasty side effects. She was reinstated only after she took the university to court.6. Comment #49903 by h2g2bob on June 14, 2007 at 3:42 am
Good news - its back! http://www.badscience.net/?p=4327. Comment #49927 by Steven Mading on June 14, 2007 at 6:06 am
CEOs are more powerful than priests in our secular, capitalist society.
8. Comment #49946 by Tyler Durden on June 14, 2007 at 8:09 am
While much of "alternative medicine" is plain quackery...Much of!?! How about "all of".
9. Comment #49952 by Bonzai on June 14, 2007 at 8:31 am
Much of!?! How about "all of".
All together now: P-l-a-c-e-b-o
10. Comment #49954 by Bonzai on June 14, 2007 at 8:34 am
You're drawing a difference that doesn't exist. Ever seen a MegaChurch? Ever seen a Benny Hinn broadcast? Ever seen "mediums"? Ever seen an episode of Pat Robertson's TV show? Many preists ARE CEO's.
11. Comment #50059 by ghostbuster on June 14, 2007 at 7:35 pm
One must remember there is no alternative medicine; there is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't. Yes, herbs can be drugs; most of the drugs we take have their origins in nature but at very high concentrations in order for them to be effective. The difference between a poison and a medicine is dosage. The alternative industry is big pharm as well, only without any regulations. There's no Ma and Pa industry here, folks, it is just another ruse to get money. AM doesn't have to prove anything; they can get away with saying it's a cultural folk medicine here in Canada and that's good enough; most people forget the "lore" part of folk and think they have more control over their diseases because AM is "natural" and therefore "better". Wrong. What is worse, people who have deadly diseases choose alternatives believing the conspiracy theories about big pharms and opting out of scientifically proven therapies. Big pharm's major problem is monopoly and through monopoly can secure rights of ownership over medicines (patents) and where they will place their funding (what will make them money). yes, there are many problems with medicine's side effects--that's what the watchdogs are for--but AM has no such watchdogs. Here, in my town, a healthfood store is allowed to advertise colloidal silver as an antibacterial (not so) with no mention of its side effects (turning you blue permanently, affecting your heart and other organs because it sits in the flesh and never leaves--but no watchdogs out there to stop them from advertising or selling this junk). Nothing written on the label about side effects. Another one--essiac tea cures cancer and the saleslady actually advised me to stop chemo as the tea wouldn't work--I don't have cancer but she thought I must have because I was reading the label so carefully. No mention of anything. (Actually, recent studies have shown essiac tea to stimulate the growth of breast cancer cells in vitro) The avergae person goes into a bookstore and sees row upon row of alternative therapies but who is going to see row upon row of articles from science medical journals?12. Comment #50062 by ghostbuster on June 14, 2007 at 7:42 pm
By the way Bonzai, the AM industry also funds university/hospital research, using their scientists with PhDs. Gets to be a who believes what, doesn't it, but it has to come down to clinical data, peer reviewed journals. Otherwise, why would we believe anyone about anything--which is precisely what religion would like. Science cannot be relative--it is either true, maybe true or it is not true. Kevin Trudeau thrives on conspiracy theories. We should not.13. Comment #50063 by Crazymalc on June 14, 2007 at 7:42 pm
14. Comment #50072 by Bonzai on June 14, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I am not arguing for AM. All I am saying is that there are abuses of science in so called scientific medicine as well.15. Comment #50162 by slpeterson on June 15, 2007 at 11:20 am
I laugh at people who think the regulatory agencies who oversee the pharmaceutical market (or the medical profession) are in any way "watchdogs." They are a cartel-enforcement agency, an oligarchy.16. Comment #51224 by hungover on June 22, 2007 at 2:02 am
I have no doubt that sometimes data is cherry picked for publication etc. However, if the pharma companies produce a drug it still has to show an effect in double blind placebo controlled trials doesnt it? Therefore if the drug is based on solid science it shoulf pass with flying colours.
1. Comment #49796 by Friend Giskard on June 13, 2007 at 1:31 pm
Other Comments by Friend Giskard