Re: Alternatives & Science

[Guest guest]

" Greg Hart " <hartg@...> wrote:

> Why would traditional medicine lose credibility?

Hmmm lets see. I client of mine who is a tad overweight (not obese) asked

her Doctor to prescribe Zenical (Orlistat) so when she visits Europe she can

eat high fat meals with no concern about gaining weight. He did.

>The organization and

> structure of medicine has been badly corrupted by management schemes and

> governments pulling large numbers of dollars out of the systems so they

> look austere. This has nothing to do with medicine or the science that it

> is based on.

Yes it does. No doubt that producers of products like Zenical, Viagra, and

Prozac are spending Millions promoting these drugs and any research that can

add further proof that they work. This is money that could be better spent

showing how lifestyle changes will make a bigger difference. It is also

money that could be used to examine some of these alternative practices to

either finally put the nail in the coffin of perhaps they may offer a better

solution.

> **Docs are expected to know everything about everything which is of

> course (pun fully intended) a prescription for failure. When we work with docs

> who don't know much about sports or injuries, we focus them on ruling out

> the really sinister stuff and assisting with diagnostic test ordering. As

> for steroids, do you really think that it would have been responsible for

> the AMA to go out and tell people that THEY WORK, especially since the

> studies they were referring to used doses that were too small to actually

> have a large effect?

I would prefer that they told us the truth. They tell us that smoking is bad

for us don't they. The real key here is education. Most people on this list

are professionals and we all know steroids work and hopefully we all know

that there are some risks. Hopefully we have the skills to deal with the day

one of our athletes/clients come to us wanting to use steroids.

Cheers

Hamish

Hamish Ferguson

BA, Dip SpSt, Cert Coaching

Personal Trainer and Cycling Coach

http://www.geocities.com/HotSprings/Falls/8908/index.html

[Guest guest]

At 11:09 PM 8/31/00 +0000, you wrote:

>Blanket condemnations of traditonal medicine are curious to me,

>as they may be inaccurate, devisive, and counterproductive

,

I agree. Consider the fact that the word " tradition " itself has been turned

on its head by those critical of scientific practice. In actuality, modern

medical practice is remarkably innovative and often changes rapidly in

response to market forces and new discoveries. Alternative practices often

boast that they are based upon ancient wisdom that has endured unchanged

for centuries. Wouldn't that make *them* traditional?

I'm reminded of Tevia's comment at the beginning of " Fiddler on the Roof " ,

" Because of our traditions, each man knows who he is, and what God expects

him to do. " If you believe that, you'll never change.

Barrett L. Dorko P.T.

<http://barrettdorko.com>

[Guest guest]

Hi Greg and others. I agree with a lot of Greg's statements, but I have to comment on the fact that it's not just "management schemes and Government" that is problematic. Research in the field is not as reliable as it should be. Even peer-review processes aren't what they used to be. I'm starting to see statements at the end of articles in peer-reviewed journals thanking the maker of a product for providing the product or assisting in the research somehow. That used to be a big no-no in peer-reviewed journals...now it seems some are "giving up the ghost."

In addition, there are many types of medicine and therapy that have never been researched fully, except to prove they have a statistically significant effect in certain populations. Unfortunately, this is frequently extrapolated to cover more problems or a larger population group than investigated in the research. (Acupressure is a perfect example). However there is very little research to suggest or investigate the source of the significance.

Anyay, just a thought.

Mike

Alternatives & Science

This almost seems a little off-topic but it is a really important issue,since the world of training is filled with sloppy thinking and all thelatest rages supported by "research."Mike Ambrose wrote:>Why would this switch in thinking occur? Could it be due to a loss of>credibility in many factions of "traditional medicine"?>****Why would traditional medicine lose credibility? More lives aresaved, lengthened and enhanced than ever by scientific medicine (which Iassume is the only medicine worth consulting). The organization andstructure of medicine has been badly corrupted by management schemes andgovernments pulling large numbers of dollars out of the systems so theylook austere. This has nothing to do with medicine or the science that itis based on.>For how many years did the "scientific medical community" state that>circumcision was beneficial, formula feeding was superior to breast>feeding? Luckily these views have changed due to the truth finally>becoming disseminated to the whole community, doctors and lay person.****These views changed because the euphoric rush of technology and theassumption that anything we could come up with was better than naturepassed. As far as circumcision goes, it is far from eradicated and therewe see medicine at the anti-scientific alter of religious dogma.>Why would the sports community scoff at many "traditional doctors">advice? How about this.. The AMA stating for years that anabolic>steroids had no effect on muscle/strength building. Or the insistance>for years that herbs had no medicinal uses.***Docs are expected to know everything about everything which is of course(pun fully intended) a prescription for failure. When we work with docswho don't know much about sports or injuries, we focus them on ruling outthe really sinister stuff and assisting with diagnostic test ordering. Asfor steroids, do you really think that it would have been responsible forthe AMA to go out and tell people that THEY WORK, especially since thestudies they were referring to used doses that were too small to actuallyhave a large effect?>The last statement is right on the money... for both camps. Viciously>protective of its turf. The "established medical/pharmaceutical">community sure doesn't want to let out that St s Wort might work>just as well as the Prozac that they produce (this is if indeed the research>comes to this conclusion - it's the only example I could think of at the>moment). The reverse is also true. Sure willow bark can help heal a>headache, but aspirin is just as effective and generally less>expensive.**There are no sides unless you are referring to those interested in thetruth and those who aren't for financial or other reasons (and hear someelements in "medicine" and virtually the whole alt-community fall). Theargument that you advance above is a favorite of the anti-science movement(the great pharmaceutical conspiracy) which does not hold up to scrutinyand BIG HERBS is getting as big as BIG DRUGS.>Both sides cast the other as a villain and or clueless.>Statistics can be made to validate almost any viewpoint. So, just about>anyone can draw the rigth (or wrong) conclusion on a research project.>Too much is tainted by outside forces. Too many are to willing>to take what is told them as gospel truth. It is a small handful who>seek out what is real. Unfortunately, the real villains of both sides>portray themselves the keepers of the truth. And that confuses>everyone.>*While what you say is somewhat true (the bending of facts to achieveprescribed "truths") it is incumbent upon all of us to become bettercritical thinkers. It is not possible to make stats validate any point.We have to become more effective consumers of information in this age ofoverwhelming information volume. Otherwise we are victims of informationand the holders of little knowledge.Greg HartCalgary, Alberta

[Guest guest]

Greg Hart <hartg@...> wrote:

> Why would traditional medicine lose credibility? More lives

> are saved, lengthened and enhanced than ever by scientific medicine

> (which I assume is the only medicine worth consulting).

Much modern medicine isn't necessarily very scientific at all, and

even good science has trouble with complex phenomena (nonlinear

relationships between multiple parameters, time periods longer than

are feasible to study, etc.).

> The organization and structure of medicine has been badly corrupted

> by management schemes and governments pulling large numbers of

> dollars out of the systems so they look austere. This has nothing

> to do with medicine or the science that it is based on.

I don't see people complaining about the scientific method; I see

them complaining about the medical establishment.

We have seen the medical community push formula over breast milk

(even in impoverished nations where mothers watered down what little

formula they could afford), claim anabolic steroids have no

muscle-building properties, dismiss all herbs, etc.

In fact, it's quite common for the scientific establishment to very

unscientifically claim that anything without scientific proof simply

cannot be true.

Is this a problem with science? No, it's a problem with scientists.

They're human too, it turns out.

Matt Madsen