Nassim Taleb defends homeopathy

boing
121

I’m not sure I can name any type of medicine that has been completely discarded, but I can name a lot of specific treatments that have, both in alt medicine and in western medicine.

I was just reading up on which alternative medicines are proven to work scientifically, which could potentially be proven, which are benign and which are dangerous. the percentage that are proven to work scientifically was higher then I expected, just like i was shocked that such a high percentage of western medicine practices were scientifically unproven or disproven. I’m 100% for scientifically backed treatments and am 100% for science, it just isn’t the sole domain of western medicine, the lines can’t be drawn that way.

1 Like
122

At which point, they aren’t alternative.

[quote]“There cannot be two kinds of medicine – conventional and alternative.
There is only medicine that has been adequately tested and medicine that
has not, medicine that works and medicine that may or may not work.
Once a treatment has been tested rigorously, it no longer matters
whether it was considered alternative at the outset. If it is found to
be reasonably safe and effective, it will be accepted”[/quote]
– Marcia Angell, editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine

2 Likes
123

That is a cute quote, but the list I linked to are still classified as alternative medicine by western medicine and not incorporated into western medicine. Alternative doesn’t mean doesn’t work, and conventional doesn’t mean it works, that is a stupid delineation. It simply means a treatment modality or type that is alternative to the established treatment type. By her definition a lot of western medicine isn’t medicine, and a lot of alternative medicine is medicine, which is great, yep i agree that anything scientifically proven should be called medicine, but that is meaningless in a conversation like we are having and contrary to the delineation in previous comments.

Again, back to reality, a lot of accepted treatments are not proven and disproven, and a some alternative treatments aren’t widely accepted yet are proven, contrary to her assertion. In an ideal world though… and this was in reply to:

also, this isn’t right:

lots of alternative treatments have been discarded.

1 Like
124

Alternative generally indicates that the medicine is unproven. However, alt med proponents frequently like to try to claim ownership of proven therapies and treatments used in scientific medicine as alternative, including holism, diet, exercise, massage, physical therapy, etc.

Increasingly, alt med practitioners have been successful in promoting the "integration’ of their nonsense treatments with actual proven medicine, which reminds me of those ads for sugar cereal when I was a kid, which always said, “Part of this balanced breakfast!” Yeah, the completely unnecessary part! They would show fruit, eggs, toast, milk, etc., and bowl of their sugar cereal. Integrated medicine is like that, “A part of this effective regimen of therapy!” Yeah, the completely unnecessary part that has no basis in fact.

We need to keep fact from fiction separate. We need to keep pretend medicine (reiki, acupuncture, therapeutic touch, homeopathy, etc.) away from real medicine.

Is scientific medicine perfect? No, but I’m all for rooting out non-evidence based practices that linger there, too. But that doesn’t’ mean you can just fill the holes with a different, unproven therapy like classic subluxation-based chiropractic.

Then you shouldn’t have a problem in naming one that has been discarded in recent times by alt med practitioners for not working. So, name one. Should be easy if “lots” of treatments have been discarded.

Science is the methodology we use to separate what works from what merely seems to work. Without objective testing methodology that accounts for experimental and human bias, you have no way separate what is true from what merely seems to be true.

So, while a treatment doesn’t need to originate from scientific medicine to be efficacious, it does need to pass scientific muster for you to know with certainly that it actually is efficacious. Keep in mind that every sincere alt med practitioner thinks their modality works, whether it be urine therapy, iridology, stool reading, high colonics to treat cancer, Miracle Mineral solution, cupping, bloodletting, applied kinesiology, alkaline diet to treat cancer. Etc. But only science can tell you which, if any of them, are right. And if you ignore science, you may think you know (as the practitioners think they do) but you won’t actually know.

125

Yeah, no.

You have not been to or delivered the lectures that I have. In them the word is used merely as a device to delineate the different branches of medicine. With no hard feelings intended or taken away.

So, you know what? Lay off. This semantical tit for tat has gotten old now. You’ve proven your point. You’re smarter than me. I’m fine with that. Cheers!

2 Likes
126

This is difficult because money. Things have actually moved backwards here in Canada in this respect. In Ontario our (corrupt) Liberal Government actually established a College for homeopaths here, ostensibly to regulate, but in effect giving them unheard of credibility. Far more likely to be all about the cheddar with this govt.
http://www.health.gov.on.ca/en/news/bulletin/2015/hb_20150401_2.aspx

It is very difficult to lobby a govt or industry to stop putting water on the shelves next to medicine when the pharmacists are getting screwed by a govt that lends credibility to an industry that enriches pharmacists.

127

That’s not it at all. I recognize the power of framing, and I’m advocating using framing that promotes science over non-science, hence my use of the term “scientific medicine” rather than being sucked into using the inaccurate and pejorative term “allopathy,” the preferred framing of non-science practitioners.

128

Taleb is probably correct. Watch this short video If Homeopathy Beats Science

Taleb is not saying homeopathy is applicable in all circumstances, but when they have that vague sense of unease… (watch the video and it’ll make sense).

Taleb is also taking into account the negative effects of diagnostic tests and “over treatment”.

Personally I’m happy to be cured by a placebo. It’s the being cured which counts. Homeopathy is likely to be as good a source of that as anything: “CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with placebo is frequently effective and cannot therefore be considered as “non-treatment”. Placebo effects can only be quantified by direct comparison with “non-treatment”. Like active treatment, treatment with placebo is frequently accompanied by adverse drug reactions. Placebo adverse effects are often disease- and active treatment-specific. The effects and adverse effects of a placebo need to be known before the effects of active treatment in controlled clinical trials can be assessed.” Placebo–efficacy and adverse effects in controlled clinical trials

Taleb’s position is easy to misrepresent and make fun of. But it actually rather thoughtful.

1 Like
129

[quote=“Skeptic, post:124, topic:69569”]
I’m all for rooting out non-evidence based practices that linger there, too. But that doesn’t’ mean you can just fill the holes with a different, unproven therapy[/quote]
I agree with this and have not argued against this. just the delineation being drawn.

gladly, what do you define as recent? radium was abandoned as an alternative treatment. there are so many if you even look into it you’ll see that a lot of alternative treatments have been abandoned because they are dangerous, just like mercury and other dangerous treatments have been in western medicine. silly to think it would be otherwise.

yep, which is why i’ve repeatedly said I’m all for this.

yep, which is why i’ve pointed out alt med that are scientifically proven and western ones that aren’t.

again your own delineation. i looked it up. the correct accepted term is conventional medicine.

my points are not quite the ones you are countering, and the points of yours that i’ve been countering are not quite the ones you are rebutting. there seems to be a bit of a communication gap happening.

130

That isn’t what I asked, though. I asked for treatments that were abandoned for not working - for lack of efficacy - not ones that were abandoned after they were determined to be inarguably lethal.

But, by recent, I think going back to the golden age radium does not qualify as recent. How about we stick to the last three decades?

I generally skip the term “conventional medicine” because it is presumptive. Conventional for whom? Humoric medicine was “conventional” medicine, as Ayurveda is “conventional” medicine in verious parts of the world.

131

FTFY

Since you require me to be your google, how about you provide the same FIRST! Please name one conventional medicine practice that is no longer practiced anywhere only because it was deemed to not work, within the last 3 decades? This is a very silly argument when so narrowly defined, there are holdouts almost anywhere, and again, i’ve been advocating for scientifically proven alternative treatments and countering actual points you are making, not setting my own goal posts.

so um yeah, my issue has never been with science which i’m repeatedly for, or for quack alternative treatments which i’m against, it is your delineations.

~yawns~

132

If you want to alter a quote of mine, other than to add emphasis or truncate it with ellipses, please take my name out of the quote attribution tag as it is no longer my quote. It’s not a huge deal, but I try to use quotes accurately.[quote=“redesigned, post:131, topic:69569”]

Since you require me to be your google, how about you provide the same FIRST! Please name one conventional medicine practice that is no longer practiced anywhere only because it was deemed to not work, within the last 3 decades? This is a very silly argument when so narrowly defined, there are holdouts almost anywhere, and again, i’ve been advocating for scientifically proven alternative treatments and countering actual points you are making, not setting my own goal posts.
[/quote]

I set the goal posts in my first mention:

I merely restated the goal you did not meet.

So, you want a treatment from conventional medicine that has been discarded in the last 3 decades for not working? Hmm…how about Xigris, pulled off the market in 2011 for lack of efficacy?

133

Sounds like fun

trolley power rating ~2.2. I’ve seen better.

134

I made a rational argument, explaining my reasoning. If you want to respond with a reasoned argument of your own, rather than a categorical ad hom, I’m all ears.

135

Correct. Aka “usual care” in the literature.

1 Like
136

It’s about making the NHS pay for it, which given the neoliberal drive to undercut the NHS and the small proportion spent on homeopathic woo, makes this a “media distraction issue”. On principle, it’s an issue. In practice, it’s sensational horseshit designed to push on the UK a USian healthcare system.

1 Like
137

Yeah, no.

2 Likes
138

OMG…You miss the whole point of FIFY!

Exactly they weren’t my points at all, that is what moving the goal posts is all about, also see straw men.

semantic argument != rational argument

it seems to me that you are repeatedly arguing against something i’m not saying while avoiding my actual points, which is frustrating. especially when i point that fact out over and over to no avail. i’ve acknowledged points you’ve made and directly addressed your points. just a thought.

i guess you got me there, there are patented medicines that no one else is allowed to make that have been withdrawn. while this assertion doesn’t at all support your point that no alternative treatments are abandoned while disproven conventional ones are (which i linked to an article that rebutted), i’ll give you that one because I was stupid enough to take the bait and be lured to defend a point that wasn’t mine.

i really don’t think i’m ever likely to convey any of my actual points about what you are saying in a way that will be addressed, and am tired of chasing points that aren’t mine, so i’ll resign and leave this thread to the rest of Boing Boing who might have something interesting and useful to say. the wear down tactic does work! I would say this has been fun, but unfortunately it really hasn’t been.

139

The rational argument is that A) allopathy is a frame, B) framing works, so C) use framing that is good for science rather than bad, eg. “scientific medicine” rather than allopathy.

That is not a “semantic” argument but rather a pragmatic one.

You didn’t take bait, you made your own claim and couldn’t back it up. When you asked me to do what you could not, only for scientific medicine, I did. It’s an example of the difference between alt med and scientific medicine: testing, getting negative results and then making changes:

[quote]Lilly Announces Withdrawal of Xigris® Following Recent Clinical Trial Results

INDIANAPOLIS, October 25, 2011 /PRNewswire/ –

Eli Lilly and Company
announces withdrawal of its Xigris(R) [drotrecogin alfa (activated)]
product in all markets following results of the PROWESS-SHOCK study,
which showed the study did not meet the primary endpoint of a
statistically significant reduction in 28-day all-cause mortality in
patients with septic shock. The company is working with regulatory
agencies on this withdrawal, and is in the process of notifying health
care professionals and clinical trial investigators.

“While there were no new safety findings, the study failed to
demonstrate that Xigris improved patient survival and thus calls into
question the benefit-risk profile of Xigris and its continued use,” said
Timothy Garnett, M.D., Lilly’s Senior Vice President
and Chief Medical Officer. “Patients currently receiving treatment with
Xigris should have treatment discontinued, and Xigris treatment should
not be initiated for new patients.”[/quote]

https://investor.lilly.com/releasedetail2.cfm?ReleaseID=617602

This is the way it should work, but often doesn’t, even in scientific medicine, as Ben Goldacre notes in his book Bad Pharma.

So I cannot, and do not, call our profit driven system of scientific medicine perfect - but when it works by objective tenets of science, it is a sound system. Whereas in alt med we’ve spent billions in tests, gotten negative results, and no treatments have been abandoned. Instead, alt med proponents see negative results and conclude, “More studies needed.”

140

You sound like a PUA. A severely misdirected one.