Friday, June 5, 2009 | Reason : In the News | print version

Print | Comments |

Homeopath Thomas Sam guilty of daughter Gloria's death

by The Daily Telegraph (Australia)

Thanks to Daniel for the link.

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25590813-5005941,00.html

Thomas and Manju Sam, from Earlwood, now face a maximum penalty of 25 years in jail.

Mrs Sam was comforted by her husband as she sobbed after the verdict was read out.

Mr Sam, a homeopath, and his wife were accused of breaching their duty of care as parents to 9-month-old Gloria in the days before her death in May 2002.

During the Indian-born couple's four-week Supreme Court trial, a 12-member jury heard from 34 witnesses as well as viewing photographs charting Gloria's decline in health from the age of four months when she first developed symptoms of eczema.

The jury heard the baby girl was malnourished and her immune system depleted because her body was using the nutrients from food to fight infections caused by her skin condition.

The Crown successfully argued the couple were criminally negligent by persisting with homeopathic remedies to treat their daughter's eczema instead of seeking conventional medical help in the last two weeks of her life.
...
Continue reading
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25590813-5005941,00.html
_____________________________________________________________
Phil Plait from Bad Astronomy has a long post on this with a number of good links.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/05/homeopathy-kills/

Homeopathy kills

[Note: This post may upset some people. It damn sure upset me. If you are easily upset by pediatric medical stories that do not end well, then you might want to skip reading this. The title alone may be all you need to know.]

Homeopathy is the antiscientific belief that infinitely diluted medicine in water can cure various ailments. It’s perhaps the most ridiculous of all "alternative" medicines, since it clearly cannot work, does not work, and has been tested repeatedly and shown to be useless.

And for those who ask, "what’s the harm?", you may direct your question to Thomas Sam and his wife Manju Sam, whose nine-month-old daughter died because of their homeopathic beliefs.

The infant girl, Gloria Thomas, died of complications due to eczema. Eczema. This is an easily-treatable skin condition (the treatments don’t cure eczema but do manage it), but that treatment was withheld from the baby girl by her parents, who rejected the advice of doctors and instead used homeopathic treatments. The baby’s condition got worse, with her skin covered in rashes and open cracks. These cracks let in germs which her tiny body had difficulty fighting off. She became undernourished as she used all her nutrients to fight infections instead of for growth and the other normal body functions of an infant. She was constantly sick and in pain, but her parents stuck with homeopathy. When the baby girl developed an eye infection, her parents finally took her to a hospital, but it was far too late: little Gloria Thomas succumbed to septicemia from the infection.

Thomas and Manju Sam were convicted yesterday of manslaughter in Australian court. As a parent myself I cannot even begin to imagine the pain they are going through, the anguish and the emotional horror. But let us be clear here: their belief in a clearly wrong antiscientific medical practice killed their baby. Homeopathy doesn’t work, but because they were raised in an environment that supports belief in homeopathy, they trusted it. They used it, and they rejected real, science-based medicine. And their daughter suffered the consequences.

And suffer she did. The accounts of the pediatricians who tried too late to help little Gloria Thomas are simply harrowing.
...
Continue reading
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2009/06/05/homeopathy-kills/

Posted: Friday, June 5, 2009 | Permalink

Comments 201 - 250 of 464 | | View Alternate Comment Thread

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

201. Comment #385750 by Caudimordax on June 7, 2009 at 2:48 pm

204. Comment #385746 by chewedbarber - I'm not trying to stir the pot here, but in your view, is fantasizing about commiting adultery the same as actually commiting it?

Other Comments by Caudimordax

202. Comment #385766 by chewedbarber on June 7, 2009 at 8:06 pm

205. Comment #385750 by Caudimordax

I guess you must have got that impression from this sentence,

Obviously those who fantasize about having sex with children don't think they are raping them, but they are.

But what I meant there I think I made clear with this sentence,

How is fantasizing about, and wanting to have sex with a child not fantasizing about rape?

They don't think they are playing out a rape in their mind, but in fact they are.

Heterosexuals are like pedophiles in that both are potential rapist.

I say that's bullshit and I think I've made it clear why. The objective of the pedophiles desire is to rape a child, that is the case for all pedophiles, therefore it makes sense to say pedophiles are potential rapist, they desire to rape a child.

To say that non-pedophiles are the same is utterly ridiculous. To say they are the same because they desire to have sex and might loose their inhibitions is beyond ridiculous.

An aside, I thought I had done better here than to give anyone the impression that I might be so dumb as to hold a belief that can only lead to punishing thought crimes, I leave that to the Priest and Imams.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

203. Comment #385768 by Serdan on June 7, 2009 at 8:23 pm

Squigit,
"Serdan: your view that pedophilia is just a sexual orientation is just plain wrong and many people have cited studies to indicate such."

Do I have that view? I think I have at most examined how things would play out if we treated it at such, but to make definite claims about objective reality, without any evidence, is not really my style.

"Also, your view that pedophiles do not need to be punished for committing a CRIME is unbelievable...as a victim myself, I am appalled at your statements but I am unable to articulate my disgust..."

If I have ever expressed such a view, then I will retract it immediately. I do believe I have repeatedly called child abuse such things as despicable, intolerable, etc.

Jamcam,
"I think the reason that people have such a problem with Serdan's view is that there is a possibility that as soon as we start viewing pedophilia sympathetically or comparing it to a sexual orientation then we have given the go-ahead for a wave of child molestation. It's a slippery slope maybe Serdan? Even if pedophilia were to be found to be a sexual orientation (which it won't) then we should still treat is as criminal because it causes so much harm to the abused. When there is such asymmetry in the power balance the only moral thing to do is do our best to protect the child."

I think there is a clear distinction between showing sympathy for those afflicted with pedophilia and in any way tolerating the abuse of children.
The safety of children should always come first. I absolutely agree with this.

decius,
"A 'child molester' is probably just a legal and/or vernacular definition for convicted paedophile."

No. A 'child molester' is someone who has molested at least one child. It says nothing about whether that person is a pedophile. The law usually doesn't make the distinction, eventhough it really should.

Neural implants sound interesting. I'll look into that.

chewedbarber,
"I say that's bullshit and I think I've made it clear why. The objective of the pedophiles desire is to rape a child, that is the case for all pedophiles, therefore it makes sense to say pedophiles are potential rapist, they desire to rape a child."

Some pedophiles may desire to have consensual sex with children, something that is only possible in fantasy. A pedophile who realizes this will not want to have actual sex with children, since that would be rape.

Other Comments by Serdan

204. Comment #385772 by mordacious1 on June 7, 2009 at 8:38 pm

Serdan

"Neural implants sound interesting. I'll look into that."

...Oh, nevermind...too easy of a joke to make.

Other Comments by mordacious1

205. Comment #385774 by weavehole on June 7, 2009 at 8:42 pm

Re: comment 182 by Corylus

I respectfully direct the right honourable gentleman to mid-nineties film Alive.

Other Comments by weavehole

206. Comment #385785 by Michael Gray on June 7, 2009 at 10:36 pm

147. Comment #385552 by Corylus

A belated thank you for your concern & the video pointer.
You may not be surprised that I have seen it many times before you brought it to my attention.
Her story has astoundingly spooky parallels to mine.

Other Comments by Michael Gray

207. Comment #385786 by MikedubB on June 7, 2009 at 10:44 pm

As much as I agree with Serdan on the issues. It seems that these ideas are begotten in a world of another dimension. Societal reform means holding the deluded up to a spotlight so that others may not follow. The punishment may seem harsh now, but it has not yet been delivered. It will likely turn out to be a few years in lock up. Anything more would be overkill.

As freethinkers, we must realize that carrying our own cultural moreys into another's life is in itself dangerous. But, to turn a blind eye to the death of a child is totally egregious, and neglects our responsibility as members of our society. Let us not judge too harshly. But a judgement must be made.

I hope that the ultimate verdict is that the people who sell these 'cures' in their stores and practices are tried and punished for the pain they have caused those that believe in them. Not to mention the pain that is caused unto those that have them forced upon themselves.

Poor child. Poor parents. Poor world.

Other Comments by MikedubB

208. Comment #385803 by Peacebeuponme on June 8, 2009 at 3:01 am

chewedbarber

How do they propose to get a child to have sex with them?

I think Serdan has really covered your questions to me, but I suppose I should respond anyway.

Obvioiusly I'm not a psychologist, but it seems perfectly acceptable to me that a paedophile may fantasise about being able to have consensual sex with a child, but at the same time be repulsed by the though of rape. They may realise that their fantasies must remain so, and retain the moral sense not to cause harm to another human.

An aside, I thought I had done better here than to give anyone the impression that I might be so dumb as to hold a belief that can only lead to punishing thought crimes

In a sense, I wouldn't mind if you did hold this belief! Regardless of the above argument, there should be no question that those with paedophillic tendencies, if we know about them, should be kept away from children, regardless of whether they have acted on them or not.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

209. Comment #385804 by flying goose on June 8, 2009 at 3:13 am

I have this skin condition on one hand, my right hand, it is very disabling sometimes. Nothing works for long, and sometimes I dispare. My daughter also has it and we manage it with what the doctors give us. It recedes only when she is on holiday from school, in fact it almost totally clears up.

The problem is obvious, stress makes an existing problem worse, both for me and her. When medicine has time to take the whole person into its view, things will get better. Underfunding, and under interpersonnal training in the medical profession makes medicine and patients alike easy prey for the quacks.

Other Comments by flying goose

210. Comment #385807 by Goldy on June 8, 2009 at 3:36 am

FG
We have the same issue with my daughter's eczema. I haven't gone down the road of woo yet to try and get it sorted. I have, however, found nappy rash cream (a set of moisturising oils in an emulsion), designed to combat dermatitis due to, well, the enviroment found in nappies, works wonders. Well, one nappy rash cream (Bepanthen - came in a new baby pack at the hospital. Never touched our baby's bottom but went straight to olderst daughter's cheeks and upper lip).
I don't know what to do apart from wait or maybe see if I can get her infected by intestinal parasites (it works...).
Seeing her bad spotted with blood from where she's been scratching and seeing her cheeks cracking, seeing her upper lip getting impetigo due to the dermatitis getting infected....I can see how a parent would try anything, absolutely anything, when visits to the GP yield little positive results...

Other Comments by Goldy

211. Comment #385812 by hungarianelephant on June 8, 2009 at 8:43 am

flying goose (385804) speaks the truth.

Except I'm not sure it's underfunding as such - just a rather mangled set of priorities.

When the NHS was created, it needed the support of a privileged class of doctors, who had to be convinced that from their point of view, things would carry on pretty much as they had done. That worked tolerably well at the time, when the most widespread health problems were infectious diseases requiring intensive treatment. Health has moved on, but the health service has stayed pretty much where it is. The NHS spends more than two thirds of its budget on people in the last two years of their lives.

The average GP consulation lasts eight minutes. It would presumably be possible to extend this to thirty two minutes by quadrupling the number of doctors, but do we really need to do this? I don't wish to demean GPs, but most of what they do doesn't require the level of skills they have, and certainly doesn't require someone on a salary of a hundred and thirty grand. The majority of people turning up in surgery are serial doctor-goers and have not very much wrong with them. They would be much better off with a long chat and a cup of tea, as long as the dangerous cases get picked up. I understand the purpose behind NHS Direct, but I can't help thinking that it's a solution dreamt up by people whose experience of the NHS is based on reading some spreadsheets.

"Alternative" medicine makes a big show of being a bottom-up. (The actual treatments, as distinct from the consultation, are nothing of the kind, but that is not the point.) That is part of its positive appeal, as well as distinguishing itself from a top-down, apparently uncaring and increasingly authoritarian "conventional" system. Those of us who believe in conventional medicine would do well to spend some time thinking about what it does wrong, and not just what it does right.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

212. Comment #385816 by robotaholic on June 8, 2009 at 10:46 am

a lot of people believe in the 'power of the placebo' and if you ask me, misleading your patients doesn't seem to go along very well with the hypocratic oath lol

Other Comments by robotaholic

213. Comment #385830 by flying goose on June 8, 2009 at 12:14 pm

Hungarian is right. It seems to me that communities need listeners within in them, people who could take up the slack from the GPs. People trained in counselling and listening . NHS direct is okay, but sometimes one needs a known and trusted person, just to unburden on. That would perhaps filter the stressed out and mentally under par.

There is a line from a Peter Gabriel song which comes to mind.

Confessing all the secret things in the warm velvet box
To the priest-he's the doctor
He can handle the shocks.

This also might be apt too,

"In this post-modern world with many of the ancient, traditional shelters now in ruins, it is as if society has lost the art of fostering community. Consumerism propels us towards an ever-more lonely and isolated existence - although technology pretends to unite us, more often than not all it delivers are simulated images that distance us from our lives”.

We have destroyed all the old 'shelters' and not really created any thing to replace them. Not that that past was a golden age, but I do think that they got some things right, things we have forgotten to replace. When that happens, well its any shelter in a storm.

Other Comments by flying goose

214. Comment #385876 by chewedbarber on June 8, 2009 at 3:13 pm

Peacebeuponme,

Whatever, I should have just surfed right by this gem --

we must view heterosexual men with normal libidos as potential rapists of women if we also view paedophiles as potential rapists of children.

--bit of a prat I am, arguing with this.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

215. Comment #385879 by chewedbarber on June 8, 2009 at 3:20 pm

Goldy, flying goose,

My son has had some eczema issues and also when he started teething he tried to gnaw his hand off and that meant a raw sore hand.

His dermatologist recommended this stuff,

http://www.eucerinus.com/products/hb_aho.html

works for him.

Other Comments by chewedbarber

216. Comment #385892 by Bonzai on June 8, 2009 at 4:10 pm

I had an eczema outbreak, or what the doctors said was an eczema outbreak two years ago. I had rashes all over and was so itchy that I couldn't even sleep. The more itchy I was, the more I scratch and the more sores developed.

I went to see a GP, he prescribed some pills and cream and they didn't work.

Then I was referred to a dermatologist who prescribed more cream and pills and anti-biotics. They didn't work either.

The dermatologist appeared to be doing trial and error with drugs and dosage, changing from one drug to another and varying the dosage.

In the end he prescribed this pill that induces nausea and a craving for hot and sour food. One day I ate half a bottle of Tobasco sauce at lunch. For a moment I thought I was pregnant and might give birth to a fat smelly rodent. But since I didn't have a boyfriend at the time and I am a boy it was rather strange.

I was thinking about switching to another specialist. Then some people told me to try this Chinese doctor who was not covered by health insurance. I was rather skeptical but I thought, what the hell, as my bill for medications had run to about $100 at the time.

I went. The guy listened to me describing my itching and asked me if I had been eating a lot of fish. I was impressed, because I have indeed been eating canned sardines quite a bit. He told me to stop eating fish for a while and the itchiness would go away. In the meantime he gave me some pills and a cream to stop the itch and speed up the recovery. The drugs costed $5 and the consultation costed another $5. So it was $10 in grand total.

One week later the itch went away.

Since then I had two similar episodes, both happened after I had consummed more fish than I usually do. I stayed off fish for a while, used the same pills and cream and the itch went away.

Well it might be anecdotal and there had not been expensive double blinded experiment done but at least the remedies seem to have worked in my case. Also, rigorous drug testing does not inform us anything about the skills of the diagnosticians.

Other Comments by Bonzai

217. Comment #385896 by Lord Osis on June 8, 2009 at 4:29 pm

Bonzai

Sounds like that Chinese guy was trying to eliminate the cause, rather than mask it over. The masking GP's use (and specialists) is usually steroids, creams, tablets or shots, nasty stuff in decent amounts.

The problem is usually immunological (hence stress usually exacerbates it), allergies (proteins) related to diet and environment. Often realted to gluten, dairy, fish in your case and bloody dust mites. I speak from experience and have also been down the pointless 'alternative medicine' path, including kinesiology (the old floppy arm treatment) and reiki (the covering with warm towels and placing hands over ones body - without touching of course - "did you feel the energy" - "nope - but the towels were warm"). Anyway, don't get me started....

Other Comments by Lord Osis

218. Comment #385902 by Lord Osis on June 8, 2009 at 5:09 pm

208. Comment #385786 by MikedubB

"I hope that the ultimate verdict is that the people who sell these 'cures' in their stores and practices are tried and punished for the pain they have caused those that believe in them."

The problem is that pretty well every chemist in Australia sells these 'alternative medicine' products, often without the obvious information that they are of the 'alternative' type. Moreover, the chemist sales staff are usually happy to promote them (in my experience).

Additionally, major (and minor) newspapers often run columns on this crap, such as in the 'Health section' (sometimes containing 'success' stories), effectively giving it free promotion.

Yes - "Poor child. Poor parents. Poor world.". It certainly is a sorry state....

Other Comments by Lord Osis

219. Comment #385906 by Bonzai on June 8, 2009 at 5:19 pm

MIkedubB

I hope that the ultimate verdict is that the people who sell these 'cures' in their stores and practices are tried and punished for the pain they have caused those that believe in them

Well I don't know about the law in Australia. But here in Canada these remedies are not marketed as 'medicine' so they are not subjected to the same law. Besides, if you want to enforce it uniformly all drug stores will be closed down as well because they sell all kinds of over the counter drugs whose effectiveness are dubious. According to a pharmacist friend most over the counter drugs don't work if you apply the same standard for 'working'. For drugs that have been actually tested to work you almost always need a prescription.

Other Comments by Bonzai

220. Comment #385907 by Frankus1122 on June 8, 2009 at 5:22 pm

Penaten Cream

I have some on my finger right now. I have a rash of some sort.
Penaten Cream works like Greek Windex (it fixes everything).

Other Comments by Frankus1122

221. Comment #385912 by Goldy on June 8, 2009 at 5:30 pm

Regarding remedies, I'm still trying to get my wife to realise that "natural" means little in terms of how good something is. Everything is a chemical, whether naturally derived or synthesised. Getting there slowly...

Bepanthen works for my daughter's eczema to a point. Seems mostly to be related to cold weather. Clears up if she goes to Shanghai....maybe the pollution there is better than Auckland pollution. As long as I can keep it in check enough for her not to get impetigo again, I'll be happy.

Other Comments by Goldy

222. Comment #386060 by decius on June 9, 2009 at 5:43 am

Comment #385892 by Bonzai

Chinese medicine encompasses a vast array of folk medical practices based on mysticism. It holds that the body's vital energy (chi) circulates through channels called 'meridians', that have branches connected to bodily organs and functions. Illness is attributed to imbalance or interruption of chi. Ancient practices such as acupuncture, Qigong, and the use of various herbs are deemed to restore the lost balance.

None of these core principles has any scientific basis whatsoever - it is pure magical thinking entirely devoid of plausibility.

In spite of this, researchers have looked both into these claims and into the efficacy of the purported remedies. Nearly all have been falsified, but where herbal remedies were used, the occasional effect (both positive and negative) in relationship to certain conditions has been detected, as it is to be expected when vegetable alkaloids are administered as a cure.
This is nothing peculiar with Chinese medicine, one can find that herbal remedies are utilised with varied degrees of competence in folk medicine from all traditions.
In fact, Chinese tradition is notorious for the sheer absurdity of many of its purported remedies, and, quality wise, it fares far worse than, say, Amazonian indio traditional medicine.
One would be hard pressed to find within certain tribes an Indio shaman prescribing nonsensical cures such as ground rhinoceros horn for impotency. Chinese medicine, to the contrary, thrives on magical notions and Chinese culture in general seems to be particularly predisposed to the uncritical acceptance of preposterous and easily falsifiable ideas.
The decline in rhinoceros population to the point of near extinction, that began way earlier than for other African species as result of Chinese impotency prescriptions, is direct evidence of this widespread cultural gullibility.

More direct evidence of the general inefficacy of Chinese medicine beyond the artificial hype generated by its purveyors can be gathered by comparisons of epidemiological data and life expectancy rates in China before and after the advent of western science-based medicine.
Moreover, if Chinese medicine (which is very ancient and hasn't changed much over the centuries) were significantly more effective than other traditions', one would expect to find longer life expectancy in China in pre-modern times. This is absolutely not the case.

A study published in 2001 illustrates the absurdity of CM practices.

A 40-year-old woman with chronic back pain who visited seven CM practitioners during a two-week period was diagnosed with "Qi stagnation" by 6 of them, "blood stagnation" by 5 , "kidney Qi deficiency" by 2, "yin deficiency" by 1, and "liver Qi deficiency" by 1. The proposed treatments varied even more.

Onto Bonzai's specific claims

I had an eczema outbreak, or what the doctors said was an eczema outbreak two years ago. I had rashes all over and was so itchy that I couldn't even sleep.

A quick search on eczema returned these basic information.

The term eczema refers to a set of clinical characteristics and not to a specific condition. Classification of the underlying diseases has been haphazard and unsystematic, with many synonyms used to describe the same condition. Further adding to the confusion, many sources use the term eczema and the term for the most common type of eczema (atopic eczema) interchangeably.
Your doctor will usually come to the diagnosis from examining you. If in doubt, or if he or she feels that you need further tests, then you may be referred to a skin specialist (dermatologist).

Further tests may include blood tests, patch tests (where little patches of different substances are stuck to your skin for a few days, to see if you react to any of them) and other allergy tests.

There is essentially no cure for eczema. It involves a sensitivity of the skin that you are likely to have to some degree from now on. There are, however, a number of approaches which help to minimise symptoms.

What's more important, in the vast number of cases, eczema spontaneously recedes after a number of days or weeks and very rarely turns into a chronic condition.

The dermatologist appeared to be doing trial and error with drugs and dosage, changing from one drug to another and varying the dosage.

This is the normal approach if the eczema isn't deemed too strong and is expected to recede in the short term.
Had Bonzai's dermatologist expected otherwise, he would have probably carried out a number of costly clinical tests on possible allergenic causes, instead of limiting the treatment to the symptoms.

I went. The guy listened to me describing my itching and asked me if I had been eating a lot of fish. I was impressed, because I have indeed been eating canned sardines quite a bit. He told me to stop eating fish for a while and the itchiness would go away.

Note that the quack didn't ask anything specific that could remotely pass for remarkable. He did not enquire after a definite type of fish, not whether it was frozen, fresh, canned - nothing specific at all.
Nearly all of us eat fish in variable amounts, so his guess sounds just like any cold reading trick.
Moreover, each type of fish has specific nutritional properties and contains specific metals and compounds. The way it is processed, cooked and preserved may greatly influence what we eventually ingest.

Simply asking if Bonzai ate more fish than usual is as precise a guess as asking if he was eating a lot of fruit.
Each fruit has its properties and contain specific chemicals, the way it's treated influences the final composition of the bolus, etc. "A lot of" also is a subjective measure. One not used to eat much fruit may think that the sudden ingestion of a banana a day constitutes "a lot of fruit".

After Bonzai's enthusiastic admission to "eating a lot of fish", there are only three possible ways that could have led the quack to his diagnosis.

1) The most likely one. He reasoned in magical terms according to CM notions and guessed something along the lines that fish was unbalancing Bonzai's chi and upsetting his 'meridians'. I'll leave to the reader to determine how impressive that is.

2) He guessed that Bonzai was having an allergic reaction. That is a plausible cause for eczema, indeed. But in this case, the quack would have turned to western scientific medicine, the ONLY discipline in human history which has satisfactorily explained allergies and found effective treatments. In this case, he wouldn't had been acting as a CM practitioner at all, but freely borrowing from actual science.

(However, if allergy were the cause, simply reducing fish consumption could hardly have brought about any benefit. As allergy patients know all too well, very rarely there exists such thing as a safe dose of allergens. Even traces of a compound can be lethal and every exposure causes the condition to reappearing and often worsen.)

3) He cranked up a diagnosis from anything ranging from Chinese astrology, to private revelation, to personal intuition. We simply cannot know, as Bonzai failed to ask him anything in detail.

One week later the itch went away.

Since then I had two similar episodes, both happened after I had consummed more fish than I usually do. I stayed off fish for a while, used the same pills and cream and the itch went away.

This is the post hoc ergo propter hoc logical fallacy applied twice. It is the most common fallacy when it comes to medicine and to clinical and pharmacological trials.
A patient, or even a physician, may be led to believe a specific treatment effective, while the condition might have spontaneously receded or a completely unrelated agent might have cured it.
In its more idiotic expression, someone may think that, say, meeting twice someone who wore a moustache caused them to catch a flu, just because the encounters occurred just before they fell ill.
That's why anecdotes, while when conspicuous they serve science to isolate anomalies that spur further research, are entirely worthless and only lead to drawing hasty conclusions. Only rigorous clinical trials can determine the validity of a treatment or the cause of an illness.

In the first instance of post hoc ergo propter hoc Bonzai uncritically accredits the quack with curing his condition, in the second he turns the correlation between his eating more sardines into the causation for the eczema.

To fully appreciate how fallacious this is, it's worth noting that, by Bonzai's own admission, a week had elapsed from the visit to the quack to the easing of symptoms.
But why couldn't have been the cure that he received at around the same time from the dermatologist that kicked in?
Because, for some reason, he wants to believe his own stories. He has no real reason to credit one treatment over the other, but he determines that magic and quackery work better than science.
Granted, neither may have been the reason for his improved health, but this doesn't remotely concern him.

While I cannot say with certitude what Bonzai's motives for abandoning critical thinking and science in this instance are, I'm inclined to think that his being an ethnic Chinese most likely played a role.
Being Italian, I experience something similar when I eat a good pizza baked, according to the best recipe, in a wood-burning oven. If the pizza happens to be baked by a Neapolitan pizzaiolo, it always seems to taste better.
Of course, I'm aware that this is just a form of cultural bias and magical thinking, and I cannot but laugh at myself when it occurs.
Bonzai, to the contrary, seems to be blissfully unaware of these well-known mental processes.

Well it might be anecdotal and there had not been expensive double blinded experiment done but at least the remedies seem to have worked in my case. Also, rigorous drug testing does not inform us anything about the skills of the diagnosticians.

No, dear Bonzai.

This IS full anecdotal and meaningless and it is entirely implausible that you could have been diagnosed on the basis of your Chi, whatever the fuck that means, even though I agree with you that not all doctors are good diagnosticians.

Other Comments by decius

223. Comment #386064 by Tyler Durden on June 9, 2009 at 6:20 am

Comment #386060 by decius

Superb!

Comment #385892 by Bonzai

Since then I had two similar episodes, both happened after I had consummed more fish than I usually do. I stayed off fish for a while, used the same pills and cream and the itch went away.

Well it might be anecdotal and there had not been expensive double blinded experiment done but at least the remedies seem to have worked in my case.

I'm reminded of the scene in The Simpsons where Homer introduces a "Bear Patrol" to protect Springfield from rogue bears:

After a single bear wandering into town has drawn an over-reaction from the residents of Springfield, Homer stands outside his house and muses, “Not a bear in sight. The Bear Patrol is working like a charm!”

Lisa sees through his reasoning: “That’s specious reasoning, dad.” Homer, misunderstanding the word “specious”, thanks her for the compliment.

Optimistically, she tries to explain the error in his argument: “By your logic, I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.” Homer is confused: “Hmm; how does it work?” Lisa: “It doesn’t work; it’s just a stupid rock!” Homer: “Uh-huh.” Lisa: “… but I don’t see any tigers around, do you?”

Homer, after a moment’s thought: “Lisa, I want to buy your rock…”

Correlation does not imply causation. Just because two things occur together, does not mean that one caused the other. Homer argues that as the Bear Patrol vans are correlated with an absence of bears, the former must have caused the latter. Lisa, tongue in cheek, argues that as the presence of her rock is correlated with an absence of tigers, the former must have caused the latter.

At least Homer recognises that the two arguments are on a par, even if he fails to recognise that both are examples of the correlation not causation fallacy.

http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/tigerrepellantrock/

Bonzai, the events you describe are barely an association let alone a correlation or causation. Had this "Chinese doctor" (a doctor, really?) told you to stand on your head while drinking a glass of water while also humming the theme tune to Bonanza, guess what? your itch would've subsided much like you describe.

Did you not think it strange that the cheapest "treatment" worked for you? After spending $100 perhaps you thought this one just has to work?

Can you spell p-l-a-c-e-b-o?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

224. Comment #386065 by clodhopper on June 9, 2009 at 6:22 am

CAM therapists seem to use many of the religios strategies to peddle their nonsense including their own curious version of NOMA. They have their own paradigm which places it outside the realm of scientific investigation while at the same time using all the pseudo science they can muster to foster their particular brand of woo.

The various tactics they use are cogently outlined in Ben Goldacre's book 'Bad Science'
http://www.badscience.net/

Other Comments by clodhopper

225. Comment #386073 by Gregg Townsend on June 9, 2009 at 6:39 am

223. Comment #386060 by decius

So, you're saying that all the Tiger-penis soup I've been drinking isn't why I'm such a virile bastard? I'm just normally that way?

Cool!

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

226. Comment #386074 by bendigeidfran on June 9, 2009 at 6:39 am

Rhino horn works, but you don't eat it.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

227. Comment #386075 by Quetzalcoatl on June 9, 2009 at 6:42 am

Gregg-

However it does explain why there are a lot of pissed-off tigers in your neighbourhood.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

228. Comment #386077 by hungarianelephant on June 9, 2009 at 6:45 am

What's wrong with placebo?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

229. Comment #386078 by Tyler Durden on June 9, 2009 at 6:46 am

Quetz -

And a lot of narky tigresses in that neighbourhood :)

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

230. Comment #386079 by bendigeidfran on June 9, 2009 at 6:46 am

Comment #386073 by Gregg Townsend

Hmmmm...I see. Not Tiger penis-soup. I will remember that hyphen.

Other Comments by bendigeidfran

231. Comment #386080 by ColdFusionLazarus on June 9, 2009 at 6:47 am

Hungarian, they are not as good as the fall

Other Comments by ColdFusionLazarus

232. Comment #386081 by Tyler Durden on June 9, 2009 at 6:47 am

hungarianelephant -

Absolutely nothing, but it pays to be aware when it comes into play.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

233. Comment #386084 by hungarianelephant on June 9, 2009 at 6:59 am

233. Comment #386081 by Tyler Durden

Right. So if a bullshit remedy actually deals with the problem at hand, by means of placebo effect, mission is accomplished. Its lack of scientific validity is irrelevant, so long as we remember that it is relevant in other cases and the remedy can't be generalised (edit - clarity).

This thread started as a discussion of someone who persisted with using magic water remedies on a child long after it was apparent that proper care was needed. That's surely quite a different matter from adults with skin irritations who find that something "works for them".

(Changing tack a bit) One of the most common complaints from woo-lovers is that "science doesn't know everything". It's poorly expressed, but it's also fundamentally true. Diagnosis is an inexact discipline at the best of times, and particularly when you are dealing with symptoms with several possible organic causes which may not be fully understood. We might be more persuasive if we were more forthcoming about this, rather than going into squawk mode whenever so-called alternative remedies are discussed. It doesn't follow that alternative practitioners do know anything, of course.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

234. Comment #386085 by Gregg Townsend on June 9, 2009 at 7:02 am

230. Comment #386078 by Tyler Durden

Don't worry about the tigresses; I'll take care of the tigresses.

231. Comment #386079 by bendigeidfran

Please forgive my improper use of the English language, it's only my native language and I've barely been practicing for 46 years yet. Be patient with me.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

235. Comment #386089 by Tyler Durden on June 9, 2009 at 7:09 am

Comment #386084 by hungarianelephant

So if a bullshit remedy actually deals with the problem at hand, by means of placebo effect, mission is accomplished.

Yes, the problem here is that the woo-woo merchants fail to mention this, while claiming it is their "treatments" at work; while science is quite up-front about it.

We might be more persuasive if we were more forthcoming about this, rather than going into squawk mode whenever so-called alternative remedies are discussed.

Agreed. My tolerance is quite low for this woo-woo rubbish. My mate is a big woo-woo follower, I've given up trying to reason with him, it's futile.

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

236. Comment #386092 by Daniella on June 9, 2009 at 7:34 am

219. Comment #385902 by Lord Osis

The problem is that pretty well every chemist in Australia sells these 'alternative medicine' products, often without the obvious information that they are of the 'alternative' type. Moreover, the chemist sales staff are usually happy to promote them (in my experience).

I read an article in Australian Skeptics written by a pharmasist that chemists are compensated sunstantially by these peddlers of woo for promoting their products. Also staff are encouraged (forcefully) to push these products. As the chemist is usually the first place people go after visiting the doctor they would expect to get expert advice on medicine not feed bs.

Other Comments by Daniella

237. Comment #386093 by hungarianelephant on June 9, 2009 at 7:36 am

236. Comment #386089 by Tyler Durden

Didn't Richard manage to get the head honcho of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital to admit that it wasn't the treatments but the consultation which "worked"?

Science (including medical science) might be upfront about its limitations, but that's far from the public perception. I would bet you that not one person in a hundred could give a coherent description of the scientific method and why knowledge is always provisional. I daresay this forum is hugely unrepresentative.

The example I had in mind when I wrote my last post was of a neighbour of mine, who is a GP. On the few occasions he's seen our toddler, his diagnosis has been hopelessly, spectacularly wrong. I have stopped saying that to people, because it is taken straight away as a devastating criticism of someone who is either terribly unlucky or shouldn't be practising.

Except that he's an excellent GP. He's well aware of his limitations (and of those who do diagnosis generally, especially for infants) and works within it. Look for the dangerous stuff, don't panic about the rest, try to do things that won't cause harm even if you get it wrong. And most important of all, do it in the right manner, with as little sense of rush or impatience as you can possibly manage. I would bet that most of his patients go away feeling better just for the chat. He's certainly good at ensuring that a child has parents who are calm rather than stressed.

But that is closer to most people's experience of alternative medicine rather than conventional. That is what we have to deal with. Until we put our own house in order, there will continue to be a market for alternative medicine, and the danger of more of these sorts of cases.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

238. Comment #386095 by Tyler Durden on June 9, 2009 at 7:48 am

Comment #386093 by hungarianelephant

Didn't Richard manage to get the head honcho of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital to admit that it wasn't the treatments but the consultation which "worked"?

And I guess you can't buy homeopathic remedies online?

I would bet that most of his patients go away feeling better just for the chat. He's certainly good at ensuring that a child has parents who are calm rather than stressed.

And the "alternative therapy" quacks use this to their advantage as they have more time to spend with their ~~victims~~ patients. The average time for a GP visit is approx 11.7 minutes.

Data released by the Information Centre for Health and Social Care show the average consultation time in 2006/07 was 11.7 minutes, up from 8.4 minutes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6923639.stm

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

239. Comment #386097 by hungarianelephant on June 9, 2009 at 7:59 am

239. Comment #386095 by Tyler Durden

Of course you can. The point is that not all AM practitioners believe in the efficacy of the magic water per se.

That's one way of looking at it. On the other hand, if the duration of the visit is important (and even the NHS seems to think it is), then you could also say that the AM crew are using it to the patients' advantage. I doubt they are using this time for hard selling: if they were, they would quickly run out of repeat visitors.

Thanks for the statistic - that's a couple of straws in an optimistic wind.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

240. Comment #386099 by Gregg Townsend on June 9, 2009 at 8:01 am

238. Comment #386093 by hungarianelephant

Hmmmm. My thoughts on your post is; all people who seek remedies, whether from a medical practitioner or from Aunt Jean, should always be skeptical or at the very least inquisitive.

Both Mrs. T and I have confronted diagnoses and therapies from our GP and even specialists and had them back down from aggressive drug programs. An example; Mrs. T has high blood pressure, not terrible but it should be managed. Her specialist had prescribed drug therapy and when after a year it still wasn’t completely in control the Doctor rolled her eyes toward the ceiling as if looking for an answer from the heavens and suddenly decided to prescribe more of the exact same. Now we're not doctors but we are skeptics and Mrs. T proceeded to grill the specialist as to what alternatives were available. It took much talking but the Doctor finally admitted that the best thing would be if she (my wife) would be more active, eat better, get in better shape and reduce her stress. Six months later the same doctor reduced Mrs. T’s prescription by half!

My other thought is, if your condition is worse than a cold or a hemorrhoid, only see a GP for referral to a specialist OR TWO.

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

241. Comment #386105 by hungarianelephant on June 9, 2009 at 8:23 am

241. Comment #386099 by Gregg Townsend

Hmmmm. My thoughts on your post is; all people who seek remedies, whether from a medical practitioner or from Aunt Jean, should always be skeptical or at the very least inquisitive.

I absolutely agree, even if I don't realistically expect it to happen. Culturally, we seem to be moving in the opposite direction. I read drug labels (those bulky inserts in 6-point font that you throw away before swallowing the pill), sometimes as part of my job, less frequently when I am about to take the thing. It seems to me that the label actually tells me more as a lawyer than it does as a patient - and that the lawyers are probably their real target audience anyway. It's really about ticking a box rather than giving any meaningful information.

Much of the "information" provided by health authorities here is laughable, or would be if it weren't so serious. It seems to have been purposely dumbed down in order to convey the most basic message to the broadest number of people in the strongest possible terms. Not that there is anything necessarily wrong with that on its own, but you would think that they would also provide more detailed information for those who want to know more.

My other thought is, if your condition is worse than a cold or a hemorrhoid, only see a GP for referral to a specialist OR TWO.

You sound like my dad, an arch-sceptic. (That is a compliment, btw.)

There's good sense in this, but I've also come to the view that there's a place for a bit of TLC in primary care. flying goose put it very well above:

It seems to me that communities need listeners within in them, people who could take up the slack from the GPs. People trained in counselling and listening . NHS direct is okay, but sometimes one needs a known and trusted person, just to unburden on. That would perhaps filter the stressed out and mentally under par.

And if you were thinking "chaplain, but without the religious connotations" when you read this, you weren't the only one.

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

242. Comment #386119 by Bonzai on June 9, 2009 at 8:59 am

decius

Chinese medicine encompasses a vast array of folk medical practices based on mysticism. It holds that the body's vital energy (chi) circulates through channels called 'meridians', that have branches connected to bodily organs and functions. Illness is attributed to imbalance or interruption of chi. Ancient practices such as acupuncture, Qigong, and the use of various herbs are deemed to restore the lost balance.

That is the language they use. But depending on who you talk to, not everyone takes it as literally as you do. It could be just a language used to describe a phenomenology.

"Theory" in a lot of folk practices doesn't have the same epistemological status as in Western science, and it doesn't meant to. But you can find that way of using 'theory' even in technology such as electronics.

Electricians think that electric currents are formed by electrons like little billard balls moving across the wire. This is a language to help them to conceptualize or visualize the situation but it is quite wrong. If electrons in a wire really behave like billard balls it would lose all energy through collisions with the atomic lattice of the wire in no time, which means an infinite resistance for all material in room temperature. This is clearly wrong. But for the purpose of wiring your house that kind of imagery is useful.

None of these core principles has any scientific basis whatsoever - it is pure magical thinking entirely devoid of plausibility.

I don't know what are the 'core principles'. Maybe you are also an expert in Chinese medicine along with your many talents.

The invention of the gun powder was also couched in all kind of magical language. But it blows you up all the same.

You can sometimes get the right answer through the wrong reasoning process. You may be lucky, or you may just get the right answer through experience even though you don't know exactly why things work the way they do.

If we were to take your hardline position than we would have to dismiss all technological and engineering achievements before modern science, which is maybe a few hundred years old. Yet ancient civilizations have been able to sail the continent, build pyramids and make very accurate astronomical calculations and yes, also cure some diseases based on trial and error for thousands of years. I suppose it was 'magical thinking' to try to sail across the sea without the sound theories of oceanography and fluid mechanics.

In modern science we start with theory and go to tests and then come back to theory. But in prescientific cultures technology was mainly 'hands on' mostly based on trial and error rather than theory. Again you can find that way of thinking in modern technology as well. It is called the 'cook book approach'. Many electronic enthusiasts and people who trouble shoot your computers learn by this approach. They have no clue about the physics involved.

In spite of this, researchers have looked both into these claim and into the efficacy of the purported remedies. Nearly all have been falsified, but where herbal remedies were used, the occasional effect (both positive and negative) in relationship to certain conditions has been detected, as it is to be expected when vegetable alkaloids are administered as a cure.

Some are no doubt. But that covers a lot of grounds, from patently absurd things to basically using chemicals naturally found in plants rather than synthesized in the labs. All molecues are the same so I don't see why as a general rule chemicals synthesized in the lab work but those found in herbs don't. You kind of sound like a homeopath in reverse.

But drug testing is not the same as treatment testing. Drugs testing tells you whether A would have effect B. But sometimes effect B may not be most desirable to treat certain conditions.

Also, if I were you I would be more hesitant in talking about testings as if I am an expert if I don't even know the difference between a confidence level (interval), a significance level and a p-value and seem to be confused by the meaning of statistical significance.

Let me just say that I get paid a shit load of money to do epidemological stats and it is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.

Note that the quack didn't ask anything specific that could remotely pass for remarkable. He did not enquire after a definite type of fish, not whether it was frozen, fresh, canned, nothing specific at all.

I didn't tell the whole story. Actually he specifically said 'small scaled fish'. But at least 'the quack' guessed correctly that it was fish.

The specialist and the two GPs I saw didn't have a clue. One guy said it might be allergy to white metal so he advised me to stop wearing belts with metal buckles. It turned out to be wrong because I have stopped wearing belts, the condition persisted, now I have started wearing it again. Nothing happens.

Only rigorous clinical trials can determine the validity of a treatment or the cause of an illness.

Yes, on the average. But I have consulted not one, but three 'scientific' medicine men before I went to the Chinese doctor. Why didn't their remedies work? This is a very simple question and I wanted to get fixed, not writing medical exams.

You also neglect the fact that in all clinical trials you must already know what the conditions are and what effect you want to test. In this case I think I was even mis-diagnosed by the doctors. The skills of the diagnosticians are not a part of clinical trials

To fully appreciate how fallacious this is, it's worth noting that, by Bonzai's own admission, a week had elapsed from the visit to the quack to the easing of symptoms.
But why couldn't have been the cure that he received at around the same time from the dermatologist to cure him?

I have been seeing the dermatologist for three months and he had been switching from drugs to drugs. Based on the evidence it is more likely that the guy had no clue what he was doing.

It seems that it is you who want to believe in men in white coats based on faith while completely abandoning you critical thinking skills. Btw, I didn't even finish his last prescription of pills because as I said, it caused intense nausea so it couldn't have been his pills.

Also, there were repeated episodes following that and I didn't see any doctor at all. Just get the same things the Chinese guy gave me over the counter.

Because, for some reason, he wants to believe it. While having no real reason to credit one treatment over the other, he determines that magic and quackery work better than science.

The reason is as I described above and the 'Quack' costed me $10 in total while 'science' costed me $100 and it didn't work. That is pretty good reason. It is you who are expousing a faith position here.

And why don't you stop being a pompous, patronizing asshole?

Other Comments by Bonzai

243. Comment #386126 by Steve Zara on June 9, 2009 at 9:09 am

Actually he specifically said 'small scaled fish'.

ROFL

Was that fish with small scales, or fish on a small scale (i.e. guppies)?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

244. Comment #386128 by Quetzalcoatl on June 9, 2009 at 9:15 am

It seems that it is you who want to believe in man in white coats based on faith while completely abandoning you critical thinking skills.

And then the question becomes from where these men in white coats got their knowledge, compared to this alternative practitioner. Perhaps looking at that might answer the question of which is a faith position.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

245. Comment #386137 by Gregg Townsend on June 9, 2009 at 9:27 am

Bonzai,

Come on now. It's real simple, the next time your rash shows up, continue with your normal diet. Treat the rash with over the counter anti-itch cream so you don't scratch it and see if it fades by itself during the same amount of time. If not, try the same thing but cut the 'small scaled fish' out of your diet. etc.

Apply the same amount of skepticism to this subject as you do everything else you post on (except the quality of certain movies).

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

246. Comment #386142 by Bonzai on June 9, 2009 at 9:33 am

Here is another anecdote that decius and other true believers for drugs and big pharma is likely to dismiss.

A friend of mine has experienced intense chest pain it was so severe that she had to go to emergency. The doctor thought it might be lung cancer or something serious and sent her to get an x-ray and meanwhile put her on pain killers. Nothing was found. The doctor tried a few other things, nothing worked but she was totally drugged up with pain killers and pills and had to take a long leave from work.

Then someone somehow got the idea that she should see a phsyiotherapist. The physio decided that there was nothing wrong with her lungs (since the X-ray didn't show anything and the doctrs' treatment had not worked) and that her chest pain was caused by something on her back instead.

She apparently had very bad sitting posture. Instead of sitting on her ass she would slide all the way down when she sat so that she was basically sitting on her back. The phsyio put her on a regime of exercises which was at first very painful. But most of the pain went away after a few weeks. There was no drug involved.

Now decius, being a man of faith, would insist that it was only wishful thinking while it was the pills that fixed her. If decius was in that position surely he would stick to the doctor who used scientifically proven drugs hoping that he would be cured. After all clinical trials do prove that pain killers are effective, along with lung cancer medications and other pills.

Other Comments by Bonzai

247. Comment #386145 by Bonzai on June 9, 2009 at 9:40 am

Gregg

Come on now. It's real simple, the next time your rash shows up, continue with your normal diet. Treat the rash with over the counter anti-itch cream so you don't scratch it and see if it fades by itself during the same amount of time. If not, try the same thing but cut the 'small scaled fish' out of your diet. etc.

Yeah, that was what the first GP told me. Obviously it didn't work or I wouldn't be seeing a second GP and then a specialist. (Actually the first guy referred me to a specialist but the waiting time took about a month so I went to a second Gp in the meantime)

Other Comments by Bonzai

248. Comment #386146 by Bonzai on June 9, 2009 at 9:42 am

Quez

And then the question becomes from where these men in white coats got their knowledge, compared to this alternative practitioner. Perhaps looking at that might answer the question of which is a faith position.

Not all 'alternatives' are the same. Many Chinese doctors are legit doctors but they just can't practise in Canada because their credentials are not recognized. The same goes with anyone who gets their medical credentials outside Canada.

But in this case it is obviously a position of faith if one decides to credit the doctors who

1) appeared to be just doing trial and error and had not the slightest clue what the problem was (the guy kept telling me, oh stop taking this, maybe try this instead..)

2) the treatments they prescribed didn't work, after almost 5 months and over $100 of ever changing drugs

The only explanation that decius would insist that I was wrong in not sticking to these guys can only be his faith in men wearing white coats. There are no other rational explanations.

Other Comments by Bonzai

249. Comment #386148 by Gregg Townsend on June 9, 2009 at 9:49 am

249. Comment #386145 by Bonzai

Well in that case, in the interest of learning about 'alternatives'; the next time it flares up, try Traditional Navajo Medicine. I've heard some miraculous stories about its effectiveness.

:)

Other Comments by Gregg Townsend

250. Comment #386149 by JAMCAM87 on June 9, 2009 at 9:50 am

Bonzai,

That's not really the same though is it because physiotherapy is established in helping to treat back pain, knee injuries, delay the onset of arthritis, and much more. And it is prescribed by doctors in the same way that drugs are. That's not really the same as the small scaled fish thing.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

Reload Comments | Back to Top