Posted: Jun 19, 2010 10:56 pm
Dudely, you said,
Of course there is, but you skirted my other examples, when you said this
What about a conventional paediatrician who tells us that vaccinations will cause harm to my daughter and should not have them? Her judgement is based upon what scientific repeatability? Because she has seen it, in untested, randomised trials enough times to know what is really happening? What about doctors who recognise that repeated use of antibiotics will cause harm to internal bacteria, things they know because they apply their judgement. Our gynae who was prepared to accept that we were using stuff that overturned his normal medical protocols, because he had good enough judgement to know that taking an inflexible approach to the medical ‘one size fits all’ is just as dangerous as ignoring it totally. You have chosen extreme examples to argue this case, why not try some of the more difficult ones? The principle is the same. Medical science cannot possibly apply randomised trials for all cases, and any effective practitioners apply their judgement recognising this. Those who apply the medical protocol without any judgement do not understand the basic issues that apply to conventional protocol. This does not mean we should not apply protocols to homeopathy.
Just consider the thalidomide example, at what point did someones judgement kick in to recognise that birth defects were arising from its use, something hopefully they had enough judgement to do before a trial proved it? Use this example in your argument and see how you go by applying the above process to thalidomide
Agreed, however I do not advocate the use of homeopathy unless you find that it works for your situation. I am making the point that blindly following a protocol for its own sake seems to be a common human failing, and often they are unable to focus on the health of the patient. I offered numerous examples above to point this out. Why are you not using one of these to dismantle the argument? Standard protocol is using steroid injections for multiple pregnancies (triplets in our our case). We were told we had no choice, but to follow protocol. Only when we questioned this, did we discover that a simple and logical alternative, that had nothing to do with alternative medicine was available, it was just pure judgement. Our gynae also saw this and we avoided unnecessary and probably harmful treatment. This was just blind compliance to protocol and suspension of critical judgement. The danger with any standardised protocol is the suspension of our critical faculties, including medicine, either alternative or conventional.
There is a difference between the anecdotal evidence you are talking about and stuff that it winds up people made up.
Of course there is, but you skirted my other examples, when you said this
he reason we don't need trials for some things and the reason we can sometimes rely on our own experience is because of repeatability. I don't need a dozen experiments run and confirmed by peer review to tell me that if I jump I will fall back down. This can be inferred from how easy it is to repeat and how consistent it is.
What about a conventional paediatrician who tells us that vaccinations will cause harm to my daughter and should not have them? Her judgement is based upon what scientific repeatability? Because she has seen it, in untested, randomised trials enough times to know what is really happening? What about doctors who recognise that repeated use of antibiotics will cause harm to internal bacteria, things they know because they apply their judgement. Our gynae who was prepared to accept that we were using stuff that overturned his normal medical protocols, because he had good enough judgement to know that taking an inflexible approach to the medical ‘one size fits all’ is just as dangerous as ignoring it totally. You have chosen extreme examples to argue this case, why not try some of the more difficult ones? The principle is the same. Medical science cannot possibly apply randomised trials for all cases, and any effective practitioners apply their judgement recognising this. Those who apply the medical protocol without any judgement do not understand the basic issues that apply to conventional protocol. This does not mean we should not apply protocols to homeopathy.
We know the things which DO require trials, as these are the things that people don't always agree on, or that you can't repeat yourself due to time/skill constraints.
Just consider the thalidomide example, at what point did someones judgement kick in to recognise that birth defects were arising from its use, something hopefully they had enough judgement to do before a trial proved it? Use this example in your argument and see how you go by applying the above process to thalidomide
Can you seriously say the same about homeopathy? And if you can't, then doesn't that mean it doesn't just fail scientific standards, but basic standards we use judge thing with in our daily lives? I wouldn't trust a friend, who told me it was ok to jump off a dangerously high cliff as there is a special vine that will catch me at the bottom, unless I was sure it could be repeated!
Agreed, however I do not advocate the use of homeopathy unless you find that it works for your situation. I am making the point that blindly following a protocol for its own sake seems to be a common human failing, and often they are unable to focus on the health of the patient. I offered numerous examples above to point this out. Why are you not using one of these to dismantle the argument? Standard protocol is using steroid injections for multiple pregnancies (triplets in our our case). We were told we had no choice, but to follow protocol. Only when we questioned this, did we discover that a simple and logical alternative, that had nothing to do with alternative medicine was available, it was just pure judgement. Our gynae also saw this and we avoided unnecessary and probably harmful treatment. This was just blind compliance to protocol and suspension of critical judgement. The danger with any standardised protocol is the suspension of our critical faculties, including medicine, either alternative or conventional.