On CBT (Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) and GET (Graded Exercise Therapy)
http://pacescandal.atspace.cc/2017/...ust-in-homeopathy-than-conventional-medicine/
http://pacescandal.atspace.cc/2017/...ust-in-homeopathy-than-conventional-medicine/
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
I've never tried homeopathy but I think it could be legit. I am reading Gerald Polacks book on water and some of his discoveries have given a plausible method for how it works. Water memory.
It is not recommending homeopathy, just using it as a handle on which to hang an argument against PACE's unscientific approach.
The double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial is the absolute best way humans have so far found to check what works and what doesn't, while neutralizing tampering, bias, prejudices, coincidental events, etc.
That is about the right of it.But just imagine how much better PACE would have been if it had been possible to double blind it. It would have shown no benefit and we all would have moved on ages ago.
You need to read more of it.And the author wishes to protect homeopathy from the process of science:
"Religion, spirituality, and many so called alternative therapies simply do not need to be put under scrutiny of critical and rational thinking."
Fuck that. Conventional medicine can be wrong, but contains within itself the power to self correct and get things right. Even though the system contains errors, it is a better bet than hoodoo, prayer, crystals and other stupidity with which homeopathy rightly belongs.
Homeopathy is a fairy tale written in a different age. The 2010 report on homeopathy makes it clear that it is fictional rather than factual.
I read the whole thing. I understand that it is an attempt to make science improve itself, and that's important. Science can always improve, and with the advent of open journals and the crisis of replication we see evidence before our eyes that it will and does.You need to read more of it.
Exactly. Also, unlike misguided medical intervention, homeopathy is unlikely to cause any harm to one's health. If you consulted a homeopath you might spend your entire appointment rolling your eyes but you wouldn't be spending it fearing further (and possibly permanent) damage to your health. You would also be more likely to get proper engagement from the practitioner.I have zero faith in homeopathy, but its not defended by mainstream medicine. That makes it mostly a non-problem. Bad science that is defended by many in mainstream medicine, and that is not everyone, is very much a problem.
One of the opportunities for manipulation that seems to be constantly overlooked is in the very definitions of medical conditions. In order to impress in a clinical trial an intervention has to make an impact on a medical condition as defined by whomever has the power to define these things, and there's a serious disconnect in the way the system is constructed. Science is a process that's designed to get to the bottom of how things work, and works best when given maximum freedom to do exactly that. Medicine, however, is built on a philosophy of allopathy and defines conditions according to their symptoms. When scientific effort becomes concentrated on proving efficacy against symptoms for commercial gain any benefit to humanity is incidental.Even this can be rigged to a certain extent. It's tough to guarantee a square deal in even the most respected bastions of medicine these days. And while you may mitigate risk, you cannot for sure neutralize it.
There are safety mechanisms in place, and they help, but they are not foolproof. RCTs, peer-review - you name it, they are all subject to manipulation.
Actually asthma is a really good example of what I mentioned above. Many, if not most, asthma sufferers can control their asthma by changing their breathing habits (look up Buteyko breathing method), reducing or eliminating their need for medication in the process. Changing one's breathing habits doesn't address the underlying process causing the asthma, but it does address the symptoms and reduce the sufferer's feelings of distress.It also fails to consider PACE within the broader context of conventional medicine, which is a field that has notched up a few little successes. The following line is not one AIDS sufferers, cancer patients, polio sufferers or asthma sufferers are likely to think is insightful.
>It is about how conventional medicine is unable to distinguish a treatment that works from a treatment that doesn’t.
Unfortunately that response is purely subjective. That might be fine for treating issues with no biomedical component, but will have no effect on an actual disease. And it could be dangerous in convincing such patients that they can act healthy when they are still very ill.For difficult to treat diseases and for some people whose makeup responds better to it, homeopathy may be a better option.
Double-blinding might not have been realistic, but objective outcomes certainly were. And the ones included did show no benefit, as well as the long-term subjective outcomes when the effects of brainwashing didn't keep up with natural improvements.But just imagine how much better PACE would have been if it had been possible to double blind it. It would have shown no benefit and we all would have moved on ages ago.
I don't think it's a defense of homeopathy. Rather it's a classification of homeopathy as a faith-based practice rather than a science-based practice. Unfortunately many fans of homeopathy try to either promote it as having a scientific basis, or denigrate science in a misguided attempt to elevate homeopathy above it. I don't have a problem in people believing in homeopathy, anymore than I have a problem with them believing in a religion ... until they try to sell it to me as some sort of universal truthIt also functions as a defence of homeopathy (whether the author so intended or not, the effect is there) seeming to believe it is benign because it is not backed by conventional authorities.