Statistical inference - invalid research

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I appreciate your concerns about research, and am sympathetic, but

1) Yehuda does have a point, and even if some of us don't wish to go

that way, there are others who do

2) My personal primary concern about research is not what it can do

for us, but rather what it can do to us. Like it or not, a lot of

research into CAM is taking place, and the scientific lobby can use

this research to its own advantage (this is my point of view - they

might disagree) to define CM and other CAM modalities. It can be used

as an instrument of invalidation, biomedicalisation., control, etc.

 

If you accept that point 2) is a valid concern, you can either turn

your back and ignore it, and try to do your own thing while that is

still possible, or you can try to understand what's going on as a

precursor to trying to get what I'll call a fair and just deal.

 

3) Ill people sometimes need to make choices about medical treatment.

Their money is limited, perhaps their remaining time on this planet is

very limited unless they find a good medical solution. They have the

possible resources of conventional medicine, and quite a few CAM

alternatives which they may utilise alongside biomedicine, or not. It

is entirely reasonable for such individuals to wish to be able to make

an informed choice, and quite simply, good quality research could be

of inestimable value in a situation like that.

 

Wainwright

 

-

" kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008

 

Tuesday, October 28, 2003 3:34 PM

Re: Statistical inference - invalid research

 

 

> Wainwright, Stephen, Rory, and All,

>

> One thing that I think would be nice

> to include in the consideration, discussion

> design and conduct of research is a bit

> of attention paid to why we need research.

>

> Is it to serve the third party payers

> who want to know whether or not a

> particular practice, method, substance,

> etc. qualifies for reimbursement

> and if so how much?

>

> Is it to write dazzling articles in

> Time and People that will drive in

> the teeming masses begging for this

> that or the other procedure?

>

> Is it to be able to stand on the podium

> with arrogant doctors and sneer with

> satisfaction as we seethe between

> clenched teeth that We are every bit

> as scientific as You!

>

> Who needs proving to?

>

> I've been talking to the trees around

> here, and they want to go on record

> as stating that their meridians need

> no defining, to which they added, I

> must report, a particularly snitty little

> Thank you very much.

>

> I believe that the reason boils down

> to an attempt to gain marketing advantage,

> and there's certainly nothing wrong with

> that, now is there?

>

> Everyone assumes that scientific proof

> will lead to an easy life. That was

> the whole assumption of post WWII

> America in embracing modernism.

> If you can just get it scientific

> enough it will, go to the moon, cure

> cancer, raise the dead and keep the

> paint from peeling.

>

> But as always, the unintended consequences

> rule and you get endless variations of

> that lugubrious scenario in which ten

> thousand Einsteins write ten thousand

> letters to ten thousand Trumans bleating

> like lambs or TS Eliot, That is not what

> I meant at all.

>

> No one intended the current antibiotic

> nightmare, for example. It happened because no

> one stopped to realize that selective

> breeding of strains of antibiotic-resistant

> organisms was the obvious consequence

> of a medical strategy that attempted

> killing the organism as a way of dealing

> with the disease that it is associated

> with, which is " causes " . No matter that

> on one intended this consequence.

>

> Isn't that the kind of thinking that

> we want to be supplanting with other

> methods that make more sense?

>

> Doesn't the broader message of Chinese

> medicine need to be included in the

> marketing materials? Isn't that what

> people want?

>

> The patient who just recovered is not

> primarily concerned with proving that

> what just happened to her happened.

>

> So I'd like to ask Who needs proof?

>

> And why?

>

> Might we want to just stop and consider

> what might be the unintended consequences of proving

> scientifically that Chinese medicine works.

>

> The growth in popularity, i.e., the increased

> dollar volume in the field, inevitably brings

> about the confrontation with mainstream

> medical marketing. But how we choose to

> deal with that confrontation remains a

> matter of free will, at least it was when

> I last checked.

>

> Do we really not have time to study the

> subject adequately?

>

> Well, the redwoods are about to launch

> an instantaeous method for teaching Chinese

> medicine.

>

> So stay tuned.

>

> Ken