1. Comment #66175 by ccrenshaw on August 29, 2007 at 7:29 am

"He's a very entertaining guy, but he suffers from existential insecurity: everything has to be proven before he'll believe it."

How dare a scientist want to see scientific evidence before blindly believing in something? ridiculous!

Other Comments by ccrenshaw

2. Comment #66178 by Holy Roller on August 29, 2007 at 7:35 am

Wahhheeyyy I got the first comment!!!:)


......oh shit!

Other Comments by Holy Roller

3. Comment #66179 by Kingasaurus on August 29, 2007 at 7:35 am

Dawkins also talks about alternative medicine relying on the placebo effect. If that were true - which I don't think it is - it still wouldn't make homeopathy invalid. Under the right circumstances, people get great results. I was in practice for 20 years, and I wasn't treating idiots.

What a load of hooey! If your "great results" are no better than a placebo, then there's no evidence that your "treatment" is doing anything. Can Dr. Woo demonstrate that his techniques work better than a placebo? He "thinks" they do? Show me the data, then. Don't just assert it.

The other nonsense is that he assumes that if his patients aren't "idiots", and they improve because of his techniques, then there's something concrete there.

No doctor in the known universe would EVER assert that the placebo effect only works on mentally inferior patients, and smart patients are too clever to benefit from the placebo effect. This guy can't actually be saying that with a straight face, can he?

Hoo boy.

Other Comments by Kingasaurus

4. Comment #66180 by Apate on August 29, 2007 at 7:38 am

Holistic Guru (read Quack):
"...can be complemented by acupuncture to relieve pain..."
Surely this is a parody? No?
Well it would make much more sense if that were the case!

Other Comments by Apate

5. Comment #66181 by dawgdoc2000 on August 29, 2007 at 7:39 am

"Over the past 20 or 30 years, it has been shown that certain medical conditions benefit from a combination of two approaches: chemotherapy, for instance, can be complemented by acupuncture to relieve pain or boost stamina"

Where is/are the citation(s) for the paper(s) with the evidence that supports this statement? Oh, wait, I just need to suspend disbelief and assume what he says is accurate. Some people will never get it will they?

And Dawkins is the one "stuck in the last century"???

dd2k

Other Comments by dawgdoc2000

6. Comment #66182 by Philip1978 on August 29, 2007 at 7:40 am

As far as I know water is a great cure for thirst, putting a mind bogglingly minute scintilla of gunk in it does not mean it cures all ills. I am sure Professor Dawkins is actually quite happy in being able to inform people of the stupidity that is "Alternative" medicine and good on him for doing it!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

7. Comment #66183 by tocqueville on August 29, 2007 at 7:40 am

The barefoot doctor seems to believe we should follow the shoe or is it the sandal, or maybe the gorde? After having exhausted all the three go and see a proper doctor...

Other Comments by tocqueville

8. Comment #66184 by bamafreethinker on August 29, 2007 at 7:43 am

"Tell me again how sheep's bladder may be employed to prevent earthquakes."

We've been employing sheep's bladder thusly in Alabama and have had no more than a barely detectible tremor in decades - see it works! You can't prove it doesn't work, so you're a crusty ole stick-in-the-mud if you doubt that it works!

Other Comments by bamafreethinker

9. Comment #66185 by Apate on August 29, 2007 at 7:43 am

dawgdoc2000: "And Dawkins is the one "stuck in the last century"???"

The Author is currently in the sixteenth!

Other Comments by Apate

10. Comment #66186 by CambrianExplosion on August 29, 2007 at 7:47 am

Another person who fails to understand science. The whole point of homeopathy having no greater benefit than placebo is what allows it to be dismissed as quackery, or that its claims are true.

That people get a benefit from it - statistically the same as placebo - is not relevant in determining whether the principles behind it are correct.

It seems as though the author suggests that we sit back and believe, even in the face of evidence, that something is true in hopes that future experiments will vindicate our beliefs. That position is valid when there is no data, but the more data there is, the more preposterous the position.

That's really the whole point of The God Delusion and Dawkins' current work as I understand it. It's not that we can say definitively, but there are "shades of probability." And with every data point and study released on homeopathy, it looks probable that it's quackery. Get over it!

Other Comments by CambrianExplosion

11. Comment #66187 by steve99 on August 29, 2007 at 7:48 am

This barefoot doctor guy is a well known nutcase, who has been the subject of much ridicule in the past, and shamefully has a natitional newspaper column.

it still wouldn't make homeopathy invalid. Under the right circumstances, people get great results. I was in practice for 20 years, and I wasn't treating idiots.

The idiot is not the one being treated.

There was a fantastic comment about homeopathy by James Randi, which described the dilution some of the supposedly more 'potent' homoepathic medicines. It goes something like this: (apologies if the details are wrong)

"Take an amount of substance the size of a peanut. Dilute it in a volume of water the size of... the Solar System. Now repeat that process a billion times."

Randi also demonstrated the nonsense of homeopathy, when he asked someone to buy packet upon packet of a certain homeopathic medicine. This medicine supposedly had a maximum safe dose(!). In his demonstration Randi kept on opening packet after packet, and swallowing pill after pill after pill...

Other Comments by steve99

12. Comment #66188 by Dax on August 29, 2007 at 7:48 am

Hmmm, for some reason I seem to be missing the argument Arendt is trying to put forth. Oh wait, he is not making an argument, but just says "you are wrong"? Now I get it.

Other Comments by Dax

13. Comment #66189 by Dunc-uk on August 29, 2007 at 7:55 am

"Complementary medicine" as a term is a clear case of clever marketting... when cast in this light, there seems nothing wrong with it. Why would we deny people things that they can take in addition to modern medicine, if they make them feel better?

The answer is simple... the misleading part of complimentary medicine is the "medicine". What these people are actually getting is "complimentary therapy". As Dawkins pointed out, patients are getting far more attention, time and the "personal touch" in complimentary therapy that modern medicine often denies them. This is a failure of the application of modern medicine that has far more to do with budgetary constraints, than actual medicine. There is nothing in the anecdotal evidence to legitimise the absurd claims by practitioners of "complimentary medicine".

Other Comments by Dunc-uk

14. Comment #66190 by oxytocin on August 29, 2007 at 7:59 am

Holy mackeral. Where does one start with this drivel?

I think this guy just proved RD's concerns correct. He is making the most asinine of statements: "everything has to be proven before he'll believe it". Huh?! Isn't that self-evident? I'm stunned.

Unfortunately, the original article doesn't permit readers to post comments. I want to tear this author a new one. Verbally, of course.

Other Comments by oxytocin

15. Comment #66191 by Theocrapcy on August 29, 2007 at 8:01 am

You mean they allow this crap to be printed, and pay someone for it?

Utter piffle, the man reveals himself for a fool for the whole world to see in a few lines. Next.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

16. Comment #66192 by Northern Bright on August 29, 2007 at 8:04 am

[Dawkins]suffers from existential insecurity ...
Dawkins must be very unhappy in himself.

Ah, if only I'd spent the last 20 years selling diluted water to people who aren't idiots, I might have that kind of uncanny insight into people's innermost beings too.

Those of us who insist on evidence before we'll believe crazy claims are clearly just out of step with the 21st century. (Which, now I come to think of it, pretty much sums up Richard Dawkins' point too ...)

Richard, if you happen to be reading this, I'm so sorry to learn from this article of your inner turmoil and distress. But don't be alarmed (it's bad for your chakras): I'm sending you some cosmic healing, so you'll be as sane and balanced as Mr Russell before you know it. I'm sure you'll find that a reassuring prospect.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

17. Comment #66193 by oxytocin on August 29, 2007 at 8:09 am

Northern Bright, I'm feeling a slight headache coming on...might you also send me some healing energy? I have no reason to doubt your powers.

Other Comments by oxytocin

18. Comment #66194 by Theocrapcy on August 29, 2007 at 8:10 am

I have some magnets for that existential strain.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

19. Comment #66196 by Alison on August 29, 2007 at 8:16 am

Has anyone done a study to see if placebos are more effective if they cost more money?

Other Comments by Alison

20. Comment #66197 by monoape on August 29, 2007 at 8:16 am

Stephen Russell - "Dawkins seems to be stuck in the last century ... everything has to be proven before he'll believe it."

So people who lived in the 1900s were less likely to accept any outlandish claim that was made? Wasn't that partially the point of the program - that the masses now seem more likely to swallow 'new age' bunkum without questioning its validity?

As for the "everything has to be proven before he believes it", presumably that means Russell accepts some things without any evidence, but requires it for others. What an amazing talent he must have! An innate ability to determine fact from fiction ... give that man a Nobel Prize!

And that was just the opening paragraph. [sigh]

Other Comments by monoape

21. Comment #66198 by Luthien on August 29, 2007 at 8:30 am

The barefoot doctor is just jealous because he doesn't have a full complement of Atlantean DNA ;-)

It's ridiculously nihilistic to think that if you can't prove something right now, it isn't valid. It's so self-limiting: Dawkins must be very unhappy in himself. We've progressed beyond that. Look at the miraculous realms being explored by quantum physicists. We have to suspend disbelief for a while, and see where they'll take us.

Sweet Zombie Jesus! Here we go again with the invocation of quantum physics. Do I need to reiterate that the "strangeness" of quantum physics is backed up by experimental evidence, whereas his "alternative" medicine isn't? Or perhaps he thinks no evidence is required because what he knows, he knows...

Other Comments by Luthien

22. Comment #66199 by Yorker on August 29, 2007 at 8:50 am

Mr Arendt,

Others here have nicely highlighted your erroneous ways and simple-minded thinking, I have no need to expand; instead I shall sum up.

You sir, are a Woo-Woo Wanker of a variety all too common these days.

Other Comments by Yorker

23. Comment #66200 by oxytocin on August 29, 2007 at 8:52 am

Alison, I don't know the exact answer to your question, but the research has demonstrated that people respond better to treatment, whether placebo or not, when they pay for it than when they do not.

Other Comments by oxytocin

24. Comment #66202 by God of Eng's World on August 29, 2007 at 8:58 am

Since Stephen Russell did not include some evidence of a study I thought I'd help him out and do it for him. Best I could find with a few minutes search. Seemed like the underdog needed a little bit of help.

http://news.independent.co.uk/sci_tech/article340079.ece

Other Comments by God of Eng's World

25. Comment #66203 by BicycleRepairMan on August 29, 2007 at 9:11 am

it still wouldn't make homeopathy invalid. Under the right circumstances, people get great results. I was in practice for 20 years, and I wasn't treating idiots.

Well, if you think the placebo-effect is a result of the patient being an idiot, then you are the shallow, close-minded one here, not Dawkins. Homeopathic "medicine" is PURE WATER, it cant, in principle, have ANY effect other than placebo(and perhaps relieving some thirst.) If the water has "memory" then every bottle of homeopathic "medicine" would also "remember" that it once was dog-piss, hippo-womit, saltwater, beer, coca-cola , acid rain, bathwater for the a T-rex and a billion other things with probably limited positive effects on peoples health.

I'd perhaps speculate, that a patient recieving homeopathic medicine from a "doctor" who also believes in homeopathy, might have a BETTER placebo effect than one who gets sugar pills from a doctor who knows he is lying., it might be that patients who recieve placebo might, conciously or not, suspect the doctor of lying, because the doctor IS actually lying. When somebody gives you something, and they themselves GENUINELY THINKS it has some effect (as opposed to a placebo-administering doctor)then the placebo may be more effective Its sort-of like a double-blind test..

Other Comments by BicycleRepairMan

26. Comment #66204 by albacore on August 29, 2007 at 9:18 am

Thanks for that link (#66203). I've been trying to remember what that series was called: "Alternative Medicine: The Evidence". Excellent series of programs that would bear repeating.

Other Comments by albacore

27. Comment #66206 by elfinabout on August 29, 2007 at 9:20 am

I think he demonstrates clearly the reason for his offence:

I was in practice for 20 years

Quite.

I wasn't treating idiots.

Yes you were, Stephen - you were.

Next?

Other Comments by elfinabout

28. Comment #66207 by PASmith on August 29, 2007 at 9:26 am

Viz comic in the UK did a great parody of this "doctor" guy.
It was called "The Barefaced liar". :)

Other Comments by PASmith

29. Comment #66209 by pewkatchoo on August 29, 2007 at 10:48 am

BicycleRepairMan
That sounds more like a double-stupid test.

Other Comments by pewkatchoo

30. Comment #66212 by Flagellant on August 29, 2007 at 10:55 am

This article isn't very funny and it doesn't do much, does it? I mean, if one is trying to be funny about Dawkins, one can do much much better. For example, here is an article from today's 'Private Eye', a British satirical magazine:

THE ENEMIES OF REASON

(Silly music. Elderly donnish figure wearing casual clothes and expression of deep concern gazes earnestly into camera)

Professor Richard Dawkins (for it is he) : It is frightening to think that in the 21st century there are millions of people all over the world who believe that they can change the future by a simple act involving a birthday cake.

(Cut to shot of family group clustered around Marks & Spencer chocolate cake covered in lit candles. Woman blows out candles while the rest of her family shout "Go on, Mum - make a wish!" Close-up of woman with eyes closed, accompanied by sinister music. Cut to Dawkins, looking shocked and incredulous.)

Dawkins (interviewing woman) : Mrs Simpkins, can I ask you what you think you were doing just now?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, I just made a wish while I was blowing out the candles, like I always do.

Dawkins: And you really thought that what you were wishing for would in some mysterious way come true?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, you never know, do you?

Dawkins: But how could blowing out candles on a cake have any influence over a future event? Isn't that just the most crude, primitive, infantile, unscientific superstition?

Mrs Simpkins: Well, if you're going to be like that, you're not going to have any of my cake.

Dawkins: As a control test, tell me what it is you wished for?

Family: Don't tell him, Mum, or it won't come true.

Dawkins (to camera) : So obviously the followers of this cult are under a vow of silence not to divulge the object of the "wish", to prevent any analysis of the outcome of their pathetic ritual, thus exposing it as an empty and futile act of self-deception for insecure neurotics.

(Cut to men in white coats looking through microscopes at pieces of birthday cake)

Dawkins: For the last five years, a team of researchers from the University of New Dworkins has been analysing over 2,000 case histories of the Birthday Wish cult. The leader of the team, Professor Hiram Moonbat, gave me his findings.

Bearded Scientist: In examining 2,522 samples, we could find little or no correlation between the expression of the "wish" by the anniversarial celebrant and any ultimate wished-for event.

Dawkins: Well, that proves it, doesn't it? The whole thing is rubbish, isn't it? And it is deeply alarming that, in the 21st century, the dark forces of unreason should still have so many millions of people in their grip, still indulging in...

Professor Moonbat (in background): ... however, our researchers were somewhat hampered by the fact that no one would tell us what they had wished for, which rather invalidated...

Dawkins (intervening): So there we have it, Everyone in the world is mad except me, and very, very dangerous.

(Cut to shot of birthday cake exploding, destroying family home. Caption reads "Reconstruction ")

NEXT WEEK: Professor Dawkins looks at the bizarre practice of shooting fish in a barrel, concluding that it is deeply unscientific and boring to watch.

Now that's what I call both pointed and amusing. I hope that RD will be as amused, too.



Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

31. Comment #66215 by bruce on August 29, 2007 at 11:06 am

This guy calls himself a doctor??? Where did he get his certificate, out of a Cracker Jack box?

Other Comments by bruce

32. Comment #66216 by Major Bloodnok on August 29, 2007 at 11:08 am

#66192 (Northern Bright):

Richard, if you happen to be reading this, I'm so sorry to learn from this article of your inner turmoil and distress. But don't be alarmed (it's bad for your chakras): I'm sending you some cosmic healing, so you'll be as sane and balanced as Mr Russell before you know it. I'm sure you'll find that a reassuring prospect.

Its OK, he's got 12-stranded DNA, now.

Other Comments by Major Bloodnok

33. Comment #66220 by aodh on August 29, 2007 at 11:19 am

Isn't this similar to the phenomenon of ECT where no-one actually knows how it works but it produces good results. Would Richard Dawkins therefore be against the use of ECT?

Other Comments by aodh

34. Comment #66222 by Lauregon on August 29, 2007 at 11:23 am

Dawkins seems to be stuck in the last century. He's a very entertaining guy, but he suffers from existential insecurity: everything has to be proven before he'll believe it. - BFD

Imagine that. Wanna buy a case of snake oil, Doc?

Other Comments by Lauregon

35. Comment #66224 by robert s on August 29, 2007 at 11:32 am

aodh, how something works is a different question to whether something works. One studies the efficacy of ECT (and all other medical procedures) by observing the outcomes. Whereas one studies the mechanisms by using things like brain scanners.

ECT is an interesting case in that there's no way to 'blind' a trial - all the patients and doctors will definitely know who is in the control group! - so any studies on it will have their credibility questioned on those grounds. Obviously this is only relevent if the study purports to show an effect.

However the irrational medical procedures can be tested, very often under proper double-blind conditions and they typically fail to show an effect. In those cases, asking whether the mechanism is mysterious seems like a diversion to me.

Other Comments by robert s

36. Comment #66226 by robotaholic on August 29, 2007 at 11:40 am

I love how the true scientist (Dawkins) is untouchable- is always correct (naturally) and above all his reputation untarnished. Also, I love how he wont debate christians anymore. It's obviously a waste of time, gives validity to the christian, and neither the christian nor the audience learn a shred...(too stubborn)

Other Comments by robotaholic

37. Comment #66228 by Russell's Teapot on August 29, 2007 at 11:42 am

And here I thought I could get through a whole article supporting alternative "medicine" without seeing quantum physics evoked as a reason why we should believe bat-shit insane medical treatments.

Silly me.

Other Comments by Russell's Teapot

38. Comment #66229 by BigJohn on August 29, 2007 at 11:46 am

Oh, dear...quantum physics invoked again...how sad. But, I suppose that if one has nothing real to base his "science" on then he must resort to something that he doesn't understand in order to infer some kind of support.

Other Comments by BigJohn

39. Comment #66231 by PrimeNumbers on August 29, 2007 at 11:54 am

Just because you don't know how something works, doesn't mean that it doesn't work. Just because something "works" doesn't mean it's working for the reasons you think it's working. That's why you can examine and work with how ECT works, but not with homeopathy, which, when it comes down to it, is just water..... You can compare ECT to placebo in a double blind study and find that ECT has an effect over and above that of the placebo, whereas homeopathy will not.

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

40. Comment #66232 by mcadamsdj on August 29, 2007 at 12:01 pm

"But no serious homeopaths consider themselves a viable alternative to western medicine, unless they're really out there."

Tell that to the homeopath who gave one of my patients thyroid hormone replacement just because they felt "sluggish..." uh, without checking the thyroid hormone level!

My patient came in with a heart arrhythmia which she wouldn't otherwise have had, but at least she wasn't sluggish anymore...

Dave, the Shoed Doctor

Other Comments by mcadamsdj

41. Comment #66233 by RickM on August 29, 2007 at 12:02 pm

The human intellect runs the complete spectrum from brilliant to absolute stupidity. As the battle between reason and ignorance moves on, I wonder who will win; the ones in the white coats or their charge.

Other Comments by RickM

42. Comment #66236 by Northern Bright on August 29, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Tell that to the homeopath who gave one of my patients thyroid hormone replacement just because they felt "sluggish..." uh, without checking the thyroid hormone level!

My patient came in with a heart arrhythmia which she wouldn't otherwise have had, but at least she wasn't sluggish anymore...

I don't understand that, mcadamsdj - hormone replacement therapy isn't homeopathic. How could a homeopath prescribe it? (I'm not doubting your truthfulness, by the way - I'm just puzzled!)

Other Comments by Northern Bright

43. Comment #66243 by Michael P. on August 29, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Here's Another View on "Doctor" Russell himself:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/medicine/story/0,,2000639,00.html

Other Comments by Michael P.

44. Comment #66246 by mcadamsdj on August 29, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Northern Bright,

Unfortunately these people can "prescribe" a fair amount of substances without any regulation. Thyroid replacement can be given as Armour Thyroid which is natural thyroid hormone (this is what was given to my patient).

Heck, I can get it off of the internet right now if I want without any regulation! Just check out this site, http://www.antiaging-systems.com/a2z/thyroid.htm, marketing thyroid supplement as an antiaging drug. Unbelievable.

Other Comments by mcadamsdj

45. Comment #66248 by Bonzai on August 29, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Cambrianexplosion wrote:

That people get a benefit from it - statistically the same as placebo - is not relevant in determining whether the principles behind it are correct.

I think that is probably the crux of the disagreement. Most people go to see doctors to get better and they don't give a damn about understanding of the correct principle. It is not unthinkable that some ailments may be caused by psychological conditions. If the cause is "imaginary" to begin with placebos may just work.

For the most part in history medicine wasn't really a science, but a collection of folk wisdom and anecdotal remedies that "work" to varying degrees.

Even modern medicine, despite its "scientific" aura very often relies on trial and error rather than an understanding of the correct principles. There is better statistical analysis is determining what "works". But that is not the same as understanding the correct principle behind diseases and their cures.Very often doctors prescribe drugs developed for different conditions because they think they might work for other conditions as well. This is based on pass trial and error,--or perhaps the motivation to use their patients as guinea pigs to test out their pet theories,--rather than any sound understanding of principles. Indeed we understand quite little about many diseases where standard treatments are routinely prescribed.

Besides, the methodologies used in the medical profession is not beyond criticism even from a strictly scientific standpoint. For those who are interested there is a book by a Standford climatologist called "the patient from hell". He was diagnosed with a rare kind of cancer. He knew there was a therapy that might save him, but his doctor recommended against it basing the argument on clinical trials record. He persisted and in the end got the therapy and was cured. Afterward he reflected upon the doctors' arguments and examined the methodologies used in clinical trials, he concluded that the methods used by most clinicians are based on a frequentist approach to statistics which is probably unsound for many purposes. Because of his lobby the Standford medical school started to offer courses in "risk analysis", which is based on Bayesian statistics. It is not taught in most medical schools.

There is also something to say about the competence of run of the mill doctors and medical researchers. I have talked to Ph.Ds in pharmacology, they use statistics like a black box and often have no clue about the underlying assumptions of these methods and what valid conclusions they can draw from the analysis. Some papers in medical journals contain rather elementary mistakes in statistical reasoning and somehow manage to slip through the referees.

I am not saying that blatant quackery should be getting a free pass, I just want to point out that "scientific" medicine is not really as "scientific" as it claims and there is much we don't know about what causes diseases,-- at least not uniformly. Also, I think it is useful to distinguish between "medical science" whose purpose is to understand principles behind diseases and cure and "medicine" as an art to heal or at least making people feel better. Chinese traditional medicine is based on trial and error. It may not have a coherent explanatory theory but it works for some non life threatening problems.In contrast, "scientific" medicine apparently works very poorly for some conditions,--like some skin conditions or psychologically related problems. Doctors only keep changing pills and up the dosage. When all the pills don't work they just shrug.

Other Comments by Bonzai

46. Comment #66249 by Northern Bright on August 29, 2007 at 12:54 pm

mcadamsdj,

Good grief, that's scary. I had an overactive thyroid for years and was really quite ill with it - it's a potentially very serious condition. To think that people are dosing themselves with the very stuff that causes it - or are being "prescribed" it by unqualified practitioners - is horrendous.

Other Comments by Northern Bright

47. Comment #66250 by wendelin on August 29, 2007 at 12:59 pm

Excuse me? My dad and I are living proof that acupuncture works. Both of us suffered from a slipped spinal disc that would have required very expensive and chancy treatment if we'd done what the doctors said. Instead we tried acupuncture and 15 years later, so far, so good.

Other Comments by wendelin

48. Comment #66252 by Bonzai on August 29, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Good grief, that's scary. I had an overactive thyroid for years and was really quite ill with it - it's a potentially very serious condition. To think that people are dosing themselves with the very stuff that causes it - or are being "prescribed" it by unqualified practitioners - is horrendous.

My friend suffers from serious insomnia and the doctor (a specialist) prescribed him an anti psychotic drug normally used by schizophrenics after the other sleeping pills didn't work. He began to feel numbness on the limbs, increasing rate of heart beats and spells of dizziness in addition to losing his short term memory. When he complained about the symptoms the doctor actually recommended increasing the dosage. He quited seeing the doctor and threw away all the pills. He still can't sleep very well but apparently a lot better than when he was taking those pills.

There are "qualified" practitioners who had no clue what they are doing.

Other Comments by Bonzai

49. Comment #66253 by oxytocin on August 29, 2007 at 1:15 pm

robert s,
Actually, you can do a double blind trial with ECT. They use what's called sham stimulation that makes the participant in the study believe that they are being administered a therapeutic dosage. This is how we know that ECT has what's called incremental validity, or utility above and beyond the placebo.

But you're quite right, the "why" of something working is different than the "how". Many medications used today have unknown mechanisms...but they've been demonstrated clinically efficiacious.

Bonzai, you've identified an important problem. Although most lay people see physicians as "scientists", the fact is that most have never been trained as scientists. When they get involved in research, things can get scary fast with their woeful misunderstands of how science works.

wendelin, I'm tickled pink that you and your father have been helped by acupunture. That says nothing about its scientific efficacy.

Other Comments by oxytocin

50. Comment #66254 by BAEOZ on August 29, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Wendelin:

My dad and I are living proof that acupuncture works.

No, you and your dad, with all respect, are living proof that belief in the efficacy of a treatment, acupuncture, works. It may be that sticking needles into various points of the body works, or just by having these needles inserted into the body makes you think they work and the brain takes it from there. It may be some other cause. I'm not sure which is the case, and I don't know where the evidence lies. I just thought I'd point out the flaw in your argument.

Other Comments by BAEOZ