Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
If you begin to look outside science, you will find that there's an immense spiritual world that can be understood (and is understood by some). It can explain such spontaneous healings. You'd have to open your minds to be able to integrate these insights and applications into what's known in science.

Look, if you're gonna do medicine - particularly serious business like curative and palliative therapies for dangerous diseases like cancer, you need clinical trials and plausible biological explanations. It is downright unethical to start practising any modality that has not been tested for safety and effect.

And guess what? Once it has been tested for safety and effect, it is not "alternative" anymore. Medicine is incredibly open-minded in that respect: If it works for more patients than it harms, then it's in.

Humanity tried "looking outside science" for cures for thousands of years. Then we tried looking inside science for a hundred or so years - give or take fifty years depending on the disease in question.

I know which mortality rate I prefer.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 05:20:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It is in, unless it offends the structures in the medical system.

Washing your hands before treating patients was not in, just because of the proven effect in Ignaz Semmelweis famous study. (Instead he was driven away.)

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 10:39:39 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, as we know
a new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it.
But this doesn't mean that paradigm shifts are not evidence-based.
Kuhn vehemently denies this interpretation and states that when a scientific paradigm is replaced by a new one, albeit through a complex social process, the new one is always better, not just different.


The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 11:05:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Feyerabend similarly says that the changes are generally better by being mathematically simpler.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 11:19:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Though "simpler" is not as simple a concept as it sounds.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 11:26:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Perhaps cleaner, or more elegant. I'm not sure I'd go with simpler!
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 11:28:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I think from memory he goes as far as saying easier to calculate, but it is ten years since I read his work.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.
by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 11:32:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That is surely wrong.

The brainless should not be in banking. — Willem Buitler
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 11:33:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, there's fads and yes there's results that are not accepted for political reasons. But the track record of scientific medicine is still better than the record of non-scientific medicine, even with these flaws.

Or, to put it in another way, data beats consensus, but consensus beats folk medicine.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jun 4th, 2009 at 03:12:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series