Quote:
Originally Posted by photon
Not all drugs are designed to address symptoms, and "imbalances in the whole body" isn't a very specific definition of something, blood sugar can be imbalanced but that doesn't say why its imbalanced. Define "imablances in the whole body", hiding behind vague definitions is common in quackery, so to not be quackery a good definition is expected.
Concerned with addressing "a" cause at least, though in most cases the cause isn't even established to be real. I'd like to see a case where the actual "cause" is shown to exist.. be it a subluxation or a misaligned chakra.
Like how the cause of all disease is acidification of the blood, or so is claimed by some but there's no evidence of.
So, do the study differently then.
So align the study along diagnoses of the cause then, get 1000 people with the same root cause. Study the methodology. Study the treatment decision process.
If the root cause is real, and the treatment is real, then you can design a clinical trial to validate it, always. A practitioner claims that they can diagnose the problem and decide on a treatment, this fact alone indicates that it is in the realm of reason, cause and effect, etc, which means that it can be studied.
|
You missed the point. Your paradigm is stuck in conventional medicine, so all your responses are designed to again try and shove alternative medicine into the conventional medicine methodology. I'm suggesting that the mainstream medicine paradigm does not apply to alternative medicine. You can find 1000 people suffering from the same symptoms, but can you find 1000 people in the exact same personal situation? Nope, probably not even ten. Does it mean that studies couldn't be designed somehow that prove some of these approaches? Not necessarily. However, those types of studies wouldn't / aren't accepted merely because they don't follow the conventional model. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.
In reality, it's better that way for the entrenched mainstream medical community because it's easier to take potshots at the unproven as cover for the misapplication of their own modality. And there's enough vague diagnoses in the mainstream medical community that they could qualify for the label "quackery" as well, since labelling is your thing.