There are of course lots of open questions - medicine will probably never be the exact science physics is - but for lots of theories - e.g. homeopathy, kinesiology, cranial osteopathy, iridology, rolfing and the like - there are definite and final negative answers.
-
-
Replying to @axel_gutmann @DugaldSeely and
Do we have definite and final answers on placebo effect? Nocebo effect? How the body's healing process works? We have a lot of science types positing definite and final negative answers. Do we really have the science to support those claims? Or is it "scientific consensus"?
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @kenjaques @DugaldSeely and
For a therapy to be considered useful/real it has to be better than placebo - this can be tested, even without knowing the exact healing process just by statistically analysing outcomes. Some therapies even contradict basic natural laws (homeopathy is the best example).
1 reply 0 retweets 18 likes -
Replying to @axel_gutmann @DugaldSeely and
Understood. Has to be tested to be "better than placebo", often with side effects not present in placebo. Risk/benefit? Is this really "good science", or is it our current understanding? Do we really understand placebo? https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/07/magazine/placebo-effect-medicine.html#click=https://t.co/zQg5TV4rnW …
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @kenjaques @DugaldSeely and
Thanks for the interesting article; I never denied the existence of the placebo effect & as a materialist I'm not surprised it has a material base. But naturopaths themselves claim a specific effect of their therapies that isn't (all) placebo & burden of proof for that is theirs.
2 replies 0 retweets 13 likes -
Replying to @axel_gutmann @kenjaques and
To say there is no evidence beyond placebo for any of the plant based medicines, nutritional approaches, lifestyle support and natural therapies used by NDs is just ignorant. Are you in practice or involved in medical research? If not try spending some time with the literature.
7 replies 2 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @DugaldSeely @axel_gutmann and
Straw men. No one says that lifestyle changes are useless. No one says that pharmacognosy (the study of natural products) is without merit. Naturopathy, however, combines a little science with a whole lot of pseudoscience and quackery, including homeopathy.
2 replies 6 retweets 78 likes -
Replying to @gorskon @DugaldSeely and
And, of course, "integrative" practitioners do not own lifestyle interventions. They are not "alternative". Classic false dichotomy. These are science-based approaches that do not require the existence of CAM. Indeed, CAM often wraps sensible advice in blanket of pseudoscience..
2 replies 4 retweets 32 likes -
Replying to @CaulfieldTim @DugaldSeely and
Correct. Also, naturopaths tend to take perfectly science-based lifestyle interventions and add pseudoscience to them.
3 replies 0 retweets 14 likes -
This Tweet is unavailable.
As do all integrative practitioners...
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.