Fit blondes in Berlin

[Skippy]

It also shows that a lot of the time when people think a treatment is helping them feel better or recover it's actually them getting better anyway (apart from, or despite the intervention of a particular treatment).  The lack of a control to the study (with a sample size of 1) makes determining causation or correlation impossible.

Like when someone gets a headache, and reach for a couple of paracetamol and a glass of water.  Their headache goes in 30 minutes.  Was it the tablets, the water, the placebo effect, or just a matter of time and the headache would have subsided after half an hour if they'd done nothing anyway?  What about next time they get a headache - that's maybe caused by something different? Anecdotal evidence is unreliable at best, which is why we rely on properly run clinical trials and scientific studies.

a) if nobody ever tried anything that wasn't already scientifically proven, we'd never invent anything new to put into clinical trials. There are plenty of successful drugs that were put through clinical trials after someone had noticed some effects anecdotally.
b) lots of things that even medical professionals do aren't trialed in a double blind test. If you've got the flu, when a doctor tells you to go home and get some rest, he isn't doing it because he's recently read a clinical trial sending 10 flu patients to bed and another 10 flu patients out clubbing and found out which ones recover the fastest, he's using a combination of common sense, knowledge of the effects of flu and and knowledge of how the body works. In this case, if there is a suggestion that taking these tablets will help your knees, and some reasonable mechinism for how it might actually work, why not give it a go?
c) even if it is the placebo effect, if it makes you better who cares?

[kinboshi]

It also shows that a lot of the time when people think a treatment is helping them feel better or recover it's actually them getting better anyway (apart from, or despite the intervention of a particular treatment).  The lack of a control to the study (with a sample size of 1) makes determining causation or correlation impossible.

Like when someone gets a headache, and reach for a couple of paracetamol and a glass of water.  Their headache goes in 30 minutes.  Was it the tablets, the water, the placebo effect, or just a matter of time and the headache would have subsided after half an hour if they'd done nothing anyway?  What about next time they get a headache - that's maybe caused by something different? Anecdotal evidence is unreliable at best, which is why we rely on properly run clinical trials and scientific studies.

a) if nobody ever tried anything that wasn't already scientifically proven, we'd never invent anything new to put into clinical trials. There are plenty of successful drugs that were put through clinical trials after someone had noticed some effects anedotally.

Then they're tested thoroughly - and if they work, they become 'medicine'; if they don't they become 'alternative medicine'.

b) lots of things that even medical professionals do aren't trialed in a double blind test. If you've got the flu, when a doctor tells you to go home and get some rest, he isn't doing it because he's recently read a clinical trial sending 10 flu patients to bed and another 10 flu patients out clubbing and found out which ones recover the fastest, he's using a combination of common sense, knowledge of the effects of flu and and knowledge of how the body works. In this case, if there is a suggestion that taking these tablets will help your knees, and some reasonable mechinism for how it might actually work, why not give it a go?

If someone qualified to advise me gives advice, I'm more inclined to believe them.  If my tap's leaking - I'll listen to what the plumber has to say.  If a child is suffering from asthma, I won't send them to a chiropractor or a homoeopath.

c) even if it is the placebo effect, if it makes you better who cares?

http://whatstheharm.net/

[EvilPie]

If someone qualified to advise me gives advice, I'm more inclined to believe them.  If my tap's leaking - I'll listen to what the plumber has to say.  If a child is suffering from asthma, I won't send them to a chiropractor or a homoeopath.

Since when has a chiropractor claimed to be able to cure asthma?

Would you send a child who was suffering with back pain to a chiropractor?

[kinboshi]

If someone qualified to advise me gives advice, I'm more inclined to believe them.  If my tap's leaking - I'll listen to what the plumber has to say.  If a child is suffering from asthma, I won't send them to a chiropractor or a homoeopath.

Since when has a chiropractor claimed to be able to cure asthma?

Would you send a child who was suffering with back pain to a chiropractor?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=chiropractor+asthma

They claim to fix lots of things, of course the whole idea of chiropractic is based on out-dated and disproven theories.  http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

No, I wouldn't send a child or an adult to a chiropractor, for anything.  They do more harm than good.

[kinboshi]

Where's the harm in chiropractic?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/may/14/dangers-chiropractic-treatment-under-reported

[EvilPie]

If someone qualified to advise me gives advice, I'm more inclined to believe them.  If my tap's leaking - I'll listen to what the plumber has to say.  If a child is suffering from asthma, I won't send them to a chiropractor or a homoeopath.

Since when has a chiropractor claimed to be able to cure asthma?

Would you send a child who was suffering with back pain to a chiropractor?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=chiropractor+asthma

They claim to fix lots of things, of course the whole idea of chiropractic is based on out-dated and disproven theories.  http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html

No, I wouldn't send a child or an adult to a chiropractor, for anything.  They do more harm than good.

Lol Dan.

These people aren't chiropractors. They're con artists hiding behind the mask of being chiropractors. There's a big difference.

They exist in all walks of life and you can find plenty of 'evidence' on the interwebs. For example the plumber who was going to help with your tap may offer incorrect advice which would cost you fortunes. Probably wouldn't kill you of course.

Another extreme example would be Dr. Shipman who was a murderer hiding behind the mask of being a doctor.

Should we all stop seeing doctors because of big H?

[kinboshi]

No Matt, have a look at what chiropractic is based on.

[Laxie]

Boshi's never wrong...and he cheats at MSN tag too.  He comes out with all sorts of rubbish claims and 'proof' to say he's won.  You haven't a hope when it comes to other topics.

[EvilPie]

Boshi's never wrong...and he cheats at MSN tag too.  He comes out with all sorts of rubbish claims and 'proof' to say he's won.  You haven't a hope when it comes to other topics.

Wasn't really arguing with him because it's pointless as you well know.

I was just trying to illustrate to Craig why Hopkin and myself said what we had. I think Dan's helped show him where we were coming from.

[EvilPie]

No Matt, have a look at what chiropractic is based on.

Seriously Dan do you really think that skepdic article is helpful in any way whatsoever? I thought you were intelligent.

To quote the article: "Chiropractors think that by adjusting the misalignments they can thereby restore the nerve signals and cure health problems. This idea was first propounded in 1895"

Well yes maybe back in 1895 they thought that was the case. I believe back then that doctors thought they cure pretty much anything by sticking a slug on your bellend as well. Things have changed a bit since then.

Every chiropractor that I've been to has only claimed to be able to stop my joints aching when they've ached. To this end they've achieved their claims. Not one of them claimed to be able to cure anything else.

Yes there will be chiropractors making bogus claims and there will also be bad chiropractors. The ones that I know of are bloody good at making your joint pains go away and that'll do for me.

[Jon MW]

Where's the harm in chiropractic?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/may/14/dangers-chiropractic-treatment-under-reported

this isn't about bad chiropracters or fraudulent ones - it's primarily about chiropracty being performed in the way that it's meant to be done

I'd say it's similar to the other supplements

I think all these things - might help - and they might do something

But without sufficient scientific evidence to support it - you don't know whether it's helping - and you don't know exactly what it's doing

[StuartHopkin]

I believe back then that doctors thought they cure pretty much anything by sticking a slug on your bellend as well.

This is why your my hero.
I'm off to find a slug.

[kinboshi]

No Matt, have a look at what chiropractic is based on.

Seriously Dan do you really think that skepdic article is helpful in any way whatsoever? I thought you were intelligent.

To quote the article: "Chiropractors think that by adjusting the misalignments they can thereby restore the nerve signals and cure health problems. This idea was first propounded in 1895"

Well yes maybe back in 1895 they thought that was the case. I believe back then that doctors thought they cure pretty much anything by sticking a slug on your bellend as well. Things have changed a bit since then.

Every chiropractor that I've been to has only claimed to be able to stop my joints aching when they've ached. To this end they've achieved their claims. Not one of them claimed to be able to cure anything else.

Yes there will be chiropractors making bogus claims and there will also be bad chiropractors. The ones that I know of are bloody good at making your joint pains go away and that'll do for me.

So the chiropractors who claim to cure asthma, colic, etc., don't exist or aren't real chiropractors?

Chiropractic is founded on the theory of sublaxations. They have been shown not to exist.  So what science is chiropractic based on?  Modern medicine is based on empirical study, things like germ theory show how many diseases are caused, discoveries in genetics, knowledge of cells, etc.  A lot of older practices have been shown to be wrong or less than ideal, and these are replaced with better (more effective) medicine.  That's how medicine improves, and treatments for things like cancer are improving.

Where's the harm in chiropractic?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/may/14/dangers-chiropractic-treatment-under-reported

this isn't about bad chiropracters or fraudulent ones - it's primarily about chiropracty being performed in the way that it's meant to be done

These aren't bad or 'fraudulent' (any more fraudulent than the rest that is) chiropractors.  That is about chiropractic in general, it's a flawed theory that does actual damage.

I'd say it's similar to the other supplements

I think all these things - might help - and they might do something

But without sufficient scientific evidence to support it - you don't know whether it's helping - and you don't know exactly what it's doing

...and they can also do harm.

[Laxie]

I believe back then that doctors thought they cure pretty much anything by sticking a slug on your bellend as well.

This is why your my hero.
I'm off to find a slug.

Don't do it!  They're slimy little buggers.

[kinboshi]

I believe back then that doctors thought they cure pretty much anything by sticking a slug on your bellend as well.

This is why your my hero.
I'm off to find a slug.

Don't do it!  They're slimy little buggers.

Bell ends or slugs?