Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Lol wut? If a therapy works at a level not yet able to be measured, then it doesn't work.
How do you measure if it works.. people get better!
That's the whole point of proper trials.
How could you have a therapy that works that isn't detectable?
Scientist: So you had 500 people in the control group and 500 people getting the alternative treatment. How many controls got better?
Alternative Practitioner: 50.
Scientist: Great, how many getting the treatment got better?
Alternative Practitioner: 50.
Scientist: So there was no difference, the treatment doesn't work?
Alternative Practitioner: Oh it works, it just works at a level not able to be measured.
Scientist: ...
You don't have to know how a therapy works to be able to detect that it does work.
|
I would agree that, when clinically testing a drug that is designed to address specific physiological issues (symptoms) and does not usually take into account imbalances in the whole body (cause), the clinical trial is a solid approach to come to a decisive conclusion. Most of the alternative therapies are more concerned with addressing the cause rather than the symptoms (although some make an effort to address those, too.) A clinical trial would almost always fail or produce underwhelming results, because the trial is not designed to address 500 individual situations; they are designed to address one single therapy or drug in 500 test subjects. An alternative therapy may be perfectly suited to a few people in the trial, but for others, when looking deeper into their particular situation, may require a completely different approach.
Some MDs approach their patients / clients this way as some in this thread have attested to. In fact, some of them will advocate that a client utilize a different health care approach in some situations. I'd love to find an MD with this outlook, however this seems to be the exception not the rule.