It is not binary. That which is not (your definition of) medical science does not immediately qualify as quackery.
It's not "his" definition of medical science. It's science. If something doesn't stand up to clinic testing using approved scientific methods, then any claims are faith based and not science based. People are free to believe in them, but it doesn not fall within the definition of medical science. There is no opinion or grey area to this. When something stands up to scientific testing, it can be called medicine. If it can't, it can't.
If I ever developed cancer, I wouldn't care if I received an ancient remedy from China or a cutting-edge treatment from researchers at Johns Hopkins. What I would care about, though, is knowing that any treatment I received was shown to be effective in properly-designed clinical studies in which the results were published and scrutinized for peer review in a reputable medical journal.
This is not an issue of East vs. West or traditional vs. modern. It's proper medical science vs. quackery.
Funny thing about your treatments that have been shown to be effective in properly-designed clinical studies in which the results were published and scrutinized for peer review in a reputable medical journal. At one point, those treatments had not been put through the rigorous testing. Were they invalid at that point? They did not work?
I would tend to trust results that have been published and scrutinized for peer review which passed said peer review, provided there was not further study which provided a counter claim. But just because a procedure has not gone through peer review does not mean it is immediately bogus. And just because a procedure has gone through peer review doesn't mean that upon further study that procedure won't be refuted. Peer review isn't science - it is a tool used by science.
If all other proper options have been exhausted, the ones left are limited. Personally, I would go looking for other treatments that are going through the process of experimentation and peer review. That way, even if the treatments are ineffective, I would have at least contributed to the field in my own way, the best way I have left.
If I had exhausted all "normal" medicinal treatments, and was still young, with potentially many years of life left to live, I'd certainly look into experimental or alternative methods. I don't know how far I'd go into the quackery, but if I had no other choice, there's at least a chance that you would consider it. Hey, if it doesn't work, at least I've gotten a trip to Europe or Mexico before I die.
That being said, I wonder how much the fear that some people have of hospitals contributes to their treatment not working as well? Getting those people out of a hospital might give them the energy their body needs to fight. It wouldn't be the alternative medicine doing the curing, but rather the alternative place, or their changed outlook.
Funny thing about your treatments that have been shown to be effective in properly-designed clinical studies in which the results were published and scrutinized for peer review in a reputable medical journal. At one point, those treatments had not been put through the rigorous testing. Were they invalid at that point? They did not work?
I would tend to trust results that have been published and scrutinized for peer review which passed said peer review, provided there was not further study which provided a counter claim. But just because a procedure has not gone through peer review does not mean it is immediately bogus. And just because a procedure has gone through peer review doesn't mean that upon further study that procedure won't be refuted. Peer review isn't science - it is a tool used by science.
If all other proper options have been exhausted, the ones left are limited. Personally, I would go looking for other treatments that are going through the process of experimentation and peer review. That way, even if the treatments are ineffective, I would have at least contributed to the field in my own way, the best way I have left.
Sure, and I absolutely acknowledge the potential of experimental treatments that are still undergoing clinical trials. That's not at all the same thing as snakeoil quackery, though.
The Gerson Therapy is a natural treatment that activates the body’s extraordinary ability to heal itself through an organic, vegetarian diet, raw juices, coffee enemas and natural supplements.
It's not "his" definition of medical science. It's science. If something doesn't stand up to clinic testing using approved scientific methods, then any claims are faith based and not science based. People are free to believe in them, but it doesn not fall within the definition of medical science. There is no opinion or grey area to this. When something stands up to scientific testing, it can be called medicine. If it can't, it can't.
You're talking about the results of scientific testing, the results of medical science. All I'm suggesting is that something that is going through the process (not yet medicine) is not necessarily quackery - it's has merely not yet been proven through scientific process, which is a lengthy, expensive process when it comes to pharmaceuticals. So, yes, there is a grey area. And it is not a one OR the other scenario.
__________________
zk
The Following User Says Thank You to zuluking For This Useful Post:
You're talking about the results of scientific testing, the results of medical science. All I'm suggesting is that something that is going through the process (not yet medicine) is not necessarily quackery - it's has merely not yet been proven through scientific process, which is a lengthy, expensive process when it comes to pharmaceuticals. So, yes, there is a grey area. And it is not a one OR the other scenario.
Why do you keep assuming that none of these alternative methods have been tested?
They aren't new, cutting edge and experimental. They aren't unproven because they are so cutting edge that they haven't been approved or tested yet.
They are questioned because they literally are unprovable. I could go to a magic healer that cures my cancer by praying for me and it might work but there is no way to prove that.
Thanks for all the feedback. At this point I'm leaning towards a minor donation mostly because trying something will help the girl and her family feel better. They sent me 2 web links - one to an alternative medicine clinic that at least had treatments that weren't completely absurd, just that had no evidence they work; the other was so wacky I really hope they aren't believing anything there (even had reference to chemtrails...).
You're talking about the results of scientific testing, the results of medical science. All I'm suggesting is that something that is going through the process (not yet medicine) is not necessarily quackery - it's has merely not yet been proven through scientific process, which is a lengthy, expensive process when it comes to pharmaceuticals. So, yes, there is a grey area. And it is not a one OR the other scenario.
No one would be here saying "no don't donate" if it was an approved clinic study testing a new drug. However, the likelihood of a non-pharmaceutical based treatment that is new and hasn't failed testing, and for whatever reason isn't yet IN clinical testing, being offered outside of north america and having the potential to do anything of value for the person? Do I need to explain why this #### cray?
The Following User Says Thank You to morgin For This Useful Post:
You're talking about the results of scientific testing, the results of medical science. All I'm suggesting is that something that is going through the process (not yet medicine) is not necessarily quackery - it's has merely not yet been proven through scientific process, which is a lengthy, expensive process when it comes to pharmaceuticals. So, yes, there is a grey area. And it is not a one OR the other scenario.
If a private clinic in Mexico or Eastern Europe is charging patients for treatment they claim cures cancer -- not experimental treatments still undergoing testing -- don't you think they should be held to a standard in which they should have scientific evidence showing that their treatments actually work?
If I had cancer and a doctor said to me, "We've exhausted all our regular treatments and we're not getting the results we'd like to see. We do have another new experimental treatment available, but it's still undergoing clinical testing. Would you like to participate in the trials even though we're unsure if it will work?" -- I'd be open to receiving that kind of treatment. That's not at all the same thing as coffee enemas and other similar con-artist "cures" that aim to profit off desperation, though.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
No, there aren't. Not any that have been able to demonstrate this scientifically and that doing nothing would have had a worse effect than the natural means.
If you are suggesting that improving ones diet can contribute to improving health, that's cool. Pretty sure no one will dispute that. Not going to cure your cancer by drinking carrot shakes instead of eating big macs, but you might get your body into better shape to prolong the fight. If you're saying there are doctors who have proven that "natural" treatments have demonstrated the ability to slow or destroy cancer cells as well as or better than current "accepted" treatment methods, no, there aren't.
Thank you for your input. Even though it is clearly spoken from an ignorant place. The Pulmonary surgeon in forks over knives clearly points out the development of cancer and it's reduction in a controlled environment. There is a clinical Dr and a Research Dr that found the same answers before they even met. It's remarkable and completely stupid that you would argue without learning about it first.
Furthermore, I don't care what you think, or anyone else. There are already doctors out there healing chronic disease with their prescriptions including cancer. The difference is what we believe a prescription is.
dichloroacetate is a chemical that has been found to destroy cancer cells.
However, I agree, believing in something without proof is certainly questionable.
The Following User Says Thank You to To Be Quite Honest For This Useful Post:
"I am not a scientist, nor am I a member of the medical field (unless lifeguarding as a teenager counts)"
Right? This is what happens when anyone brings something health related up. They look for the doctor stuff and if it isn't there they can't be counted on as a reasonable expert. I think it works both ways.
I just emailed the Forks over knives group for more information on the studies and any supporting info and included your link as well. Lets see what happens.
I appreciate your natural skeptic thinking and I think this will be fun if they get back to me.
