[nearting]

This argument is essentially whataboutism - any issues in the practice of modern evidence-based medicine does not in any way validate the efficacy of homeopathy or similar pseudoscientific approaches. On top of that, arguing that most medical recommendations are unnecessary and overpriced doesn't help the case of homeopathy or chiropractic either - I mean, at that point, why charge patients any more than the cost of sugar or a short massage?

[financltravsty]

It’s not an argument, it’s a discussion. All forms of popular and mass-market medicine are shit. See: Sturgeon’s law. Allopathic, “modern medicine,” and homeopathic.

Allopathic medicine, I would argue, is pseudoscientific because research where placebo does better or negative results are achieved are thrown out and never published. Instead, it’s p-hacked and methodologically-massaged (knowingly and unknowingly) to achieve the results the grants paid for. And even when published, practice does not keep up with the research.

Double blind studies on spinal surgeries are a great example where placebo, stemming from the belief of the patient that he received treatment, is just as effective in alleviating subjective pain. In the placebo case, simply putting the patient under anaesthesia and having him believe he had surgery is enough to resolve spinal pain. Or how about where common spinal surgeries stem from?: surgical experimentation with only flimsy research integrity. The first spinal fusions were essentially no different than lobotomies with how reckless and unethical the practice of experimenting based on loose evidence is. Not even in a research context, but a surgical, and informal one.

And yet, the same results can be found with less drastic and life-changing means. Instead of fusing your spine with titanium screws, you could go to a chiropractor for unexplained back pain. Or better yet, figure out the psychosomatic and physical causes (stress, poor muscle tone, etc.), instead of band-aiding the problem. What a thought!

Homeopathy, chiropractic, osteopathy, “holistic medicine,” etc. are better when they achieve the same results, for less cost (monetary, physical, what have you), when they work, and do not do further harm to the patient.

That doesn’t mean they’re both not scams. But one scam is less harmful en masse than the other. Both use “woo” to achieve the same ends, but neither are honest about it.

[atoav]

You are not wrong in what you're saying, it is just weirdly materialistic.

The problem about homeopathy isn't that it is a placebo or a the result of a study that had shit methodology. The problem with homeopathy is that it is made up bullshit that remains in the health space despite clear evidence it does not work.

Just like with horoscopes, the problem isn't what it does in itself, but where the unchallenged believes lead to. My neighbour died with cancer at the age of 50 as she only wanted "natural" medicine and homeopathy to treat it. A chemo therapy would have likely saved her life her heartbroken kids told me.

So sure, we can pretend there are no side effects of accepting bogus medicine, and even then it is an obvious cash grab, because homeopathy is not cheap. But it being bogus is the main problem.

[nelgaard]

I especially find veterinary homeopathy troublesome. How would placebo even work here? Maybe the owners of dogs and cats believe that their pets are having less pains.

[Fezzik]

Do you lump MMR vaccines in with popular and mass-market medicine that is shit or homeopathy? How about the polio or HPV vaccine? Or the drugs that suppress HIV? Or setting bones? Or heart surgery, or laser eye surgery, or amputations… all the (vague) claims in your discussion are bunk; the fact there is an unacceptably high number of elective surgeries done does not take away from the fact that all measurable advances in medicine have come from modern medicine. The massive increase we have seen in longevity and quality of life as we age is tied to modern medicine; the fact there are still more discoveries to be made is a given.

[lostlogin]

This is the right answer. Just one addition though, modern sewer systems and clean water have done a vast amount for life expectancy.

[financltravsty]

That is not a given, but an assumption made from hand-waivey evidence.

From my point of view, longevity is not up and neither is quality of life due to modern medicine. Aside from some of the most fundamental medicines (penicillin, insulin, setting bones, etc.), it has yet to be proven that most forms of healthcare are not parasitic in nature. I.e. that whatever increases in longevity and quality of life are not due to modern medicine, but confounded because both have increased at the same time.

What is your evidence?

[pertymcpert]

Can you provide evidence that most medicine doesn’t work?

[financltravsty]

That's not my view. My view is that modern medicine achieves results, but at costs (monetary, and otherwise) that are avoidable and superfluous, if not outright harmful.

[nulld3v]

> it has yet to be proven that most forms of healthcare are not parasitic in nature. I.e. that whatever increases in longevity and quality of life are not due to modern medicine, but confounded because both have increased at the same time.

So what are the increases caused by? And what does it mean exactly for something to be parasitic? What is "both" referring to in your comment? Do you mean the relationship between lifespan and healthcare is correlation, not causation?

[financltravsty]

Yes, correlation is not causation. In the case of increases in longevity & quality of life (1) and the advancement of and better access to modern medicine (2), 2 is leaching off the results of 1 -- both in terms of recognition, and also in terms of resources.

[nulld3v]

Ok, now I kinda of understand what you are talking about. Where do you think the improvement comes from then? Do you think it's because people have a better understanding of their bodies? Or maybe people no longer lack basic necessities?

Also, what kind of research do you think we should be doing instead of pouring more resources into "modern" medicine?

[cainxinth]

> Homeopathy, chiropractic, osteopathy, “holistic medicine,” etc. are better when they achieve the same results, for less cost (monetary, physical, what have you), when they work, and do not do further harm to the patient.

That’s a tautology. “X is better than Y when it’s better than Y.” Show us evidence that they are better. But you won’t be able to. Alternative medicines do not generally outperform conventional medicine because they “…do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on testimonials, anecdotes, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural ‘energies,’ pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine

[financltravsty]

Who the hell is going to get a grant for studying the effectiveness of any of these things? Much less, who the hell is going to publish this in any reputable journal?

The evidence will be anecdotal at best.

[fnordpiglet]

Oh actually proving something as not true you know is likely not true is one of the easiest ways to get a well referenced paper published, and it doesn’t require expensive phased trials because it’s not true and is easily proven. There’s no need to do elaborate safety studies since it’s ineffective, you just need a fairly simply study that most medical professors can fund out of their discretionary research time and pads their paper counts. Journals are replete with “alternative medicine X does nothing” proof studies as a result.

The real challenge is taking something that does work, but isn’t economically worth while, through the phased trial process. However even those studies regularly get published - “X appears to be effective deserves further research,” which is probably the sadder side of medical research as that’s code for “never going to be researched.”

[cainxinth]

To the contrary, they've all been studied, which is how we know they aren't as effective as traditional medicine. Take acupuncture:

"As of 2021 many thousands of papers had been published on the efficacy of acupuncture for the treatment of various adult health conditions, but there was no robust evidence it was beneficial for anything, except shoulder pain and fibromyalgia.[17] For Science-Based Medicine, Steven Novella wrote that the overall pattern of evidence was reminiscent of that for homeopathy, compatible with the hypothesis that most, if not all, benefits were due to the placebo effect, and strongly suggestive that acupuncture had no beneficial therapeutic effects at all.[18]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture#Efficacy

[financltravsty]

Wikipedia is not a source. It is an opinion blog (just like ref 18), not peer-reviewed. Ref 17 is a systematic review, which is better, but this is still a lazy reply and it frustrates me to no end.

I'm not arguing for equal efficacy. I'm arguing that the complete disregard of sham practices, mediated by placebo, is not rational; and that not taking placebo into account as a possible treatment for certain conditions is short-sighted (if not harmful).