Lame attempt at defending quacks through diversion.

I'm offending the AMA...and perhaps you as well.

Surely you are concerned with the fact that some doctors are quacks. You guys don't give them a free ride just because the type of medicine they practice is acceptable to you. Do you??

Your ludicrous attempts at pretending that we do doesn't help you at all. It just shows that you will say anything to continue to promote scam artists. The fact is that you confessed that you don't understand any of the actual issues. You just want to paint a picture that has nothing to do with the real world in order to foment doubt about science and promote scam artists. If you try to pretend that it is otherwise, I will make sure to point out every scam OP you "like" from now on...

Really?

Then I suggest you stop, because the next time I see it, I will point it out to everyone.

Here's one: http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=thread&address=10027763092&info=1#recs

Should I find more?

Of course, if I said anything remotely positive about any modality of medicine that YOU disapprove of, I suppose you would think that I have.

Isn't that right, Huck?

Or.... What?

It has nothing to do with my approval. A scam is a scam.

That's the part you repeatedly skip. When you can support your claims, you will have an actual reason to disagree with me on the things you seem to want to disagree with me upon. Since you can't, you really have a problem that you have failed to recognize.

According to you, I didn't get better after seeing an acupuncturist. And of course, who would know better how I feel than, er, you?

Choosing a placebo anecdote over actual science does not make sense. Think about the time and resources you have to put in for acupuncture, a treatment that is not supported by science. That gets to the realization that acupuncturists don't have respect for science, people's time or resources. It's fairly astounding.

Pharm research shows that sort of thing all the time. The amazing sugar pill!

What do you recommend, Doc?

Hey, one of my favorite MDs did an amazing job on an elderly friend. I had dropped him off at the docs one day because he "wasn't good". An hour later I picked him up and he was chipper. I asked if the doc had given him B12 or something. No. They "just talked".

That's perfectly good medical practice in my book!

You certainly didn't need acupuncture.

Surgery, sugar pills, real pills??

If a bit of mindfulness, or a reality check/CBT thought process might help, well, there's that. But it's not like acupuncture did anything on a biological level.

I had that happy anecdotal and coincidental outcome every time I went to the theater, as the author you pointed to claims an acupuncturist's office is.

One day, I'll tell you what happened with herbs...but only if you are sitting on the fainting couch. I wouldn't want you to fall and mess up your shoulder.

It doesn't matter that it has been shown to be nothing. This might explain why you don't care about the science on other topics, either.

https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine//the-plural-of-anecdote-is-not-data

And your assertion that I "don't care about the science on other topics, either" could only be based in a "belief" that you, oddly unscientifically, hold dear.

I'm surprised that you weren't more rigorous in your analysis prior to making claims about someone you don't know. Very unscientific.

Sure, it's anecdotal, but, to date, I have yet to see you acknowledge the science in any area.

YOU "have yet to see (me) acknowledge the science (as you see fit to deem as such) in any area".

College logic would have helped you avoid stepping in it. Huck says: "I have not seen Wilms acknowledge what I deem scientific, therefore Wilms does not acknowledge science".

Your obsession has got the better of you, Huck. Perhaps I have too.

You have had chances to acknowledge the science in multiple areas, yet you have not done so. Even if you do in one area, or more, you habitually do not acknowledge it. You certainly do not acknowledge it in a way that matters, because you repeatedly work very hard to ensure that your preconceptions are not changed by science.

Perhaps you should light up a smoke and relax. Doctor approved, ya know.

http://www.healio.com/hematology-oncology/news/print/hemonc-today/%7B241d62a7-fe6e-4c5b-9fed-a33cc6e4bd7c%7D/cigarettes-were-once-physician-tested-approved

How these people were deceived into accepting treatments without any evidence to support them, by people without qualifications or any kind of process to oversee their work.

There are scandals and failures and people who slip through the systems and others that simply make mistakes. As someone who has worked in the health sector, I would never deny that. Point out to me the sector that does not.

There is no conspiracy here.

(I love the way that word gets thrown in and around.)

It's amazing to me how you never seem to catch one of these many stories.

And you suggest that I "seem to be implying".

We're off to a great start, you and me.

How many percent of people visiting a hospital die of medical errors?

How many percent of people visiting "quacks" die of medical errors?

Last edited Thu Apr 28, 2016, 11:43 AM - Edit history (2)

That's right. Zero.

So, how many people would die if they utilized scams instead of actual health care? Can you count that high?

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/death-by-medicine/

Good question. But those are impressive numbers at the link. Aren't they?

dies of a "medical" error, no medicine to be found there.
They die out of ignorance and/or greed on the part of those who practice/promote such things. It is in my mind manslaughter if ignorance, murder if greed.

An old friend (who wasn't old) died recently. She had surgery after an aneurysm, and a stroke in the OR. Real bad. I'm assuming they did everything right. And I'm assuming that years ago she wouldn't have survived long enough to go into the OR in the first place.

AND, believe it or not, Huck, I can walk and chew gum at the very same time!