Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Australia's ABC AM Radio Interview Set: Dwyer is from Science / Rigor, Phelps is from sCAM / Falsehood [IMHO]

here, I quote in part from two separate interviews of representatives of Friends of Science in Medicine and Integrative Medicine in Australia, respectively, with my comments in unquoted bold [see 001., below]:

001. blogs.abc.net.au states in "Complementary Medicine - To Teach or Not to Teach" (2012-03-28) [saved 2012-03-28]:

Note: one point I'll make, from this beginning, is that the title here is directly related to an ACADEMIC question, but mainly Phelps evaded that issue and pursued a COMMERCE perspective related to patients / the general population and not STUDENTS.

001.a. Dwyer's:

"Professor John Dwyer [...] emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales [...and] the President of the Friends of Science in Medicine [...which numbers now] 650 [...of the] leading doctors and scientists in Australia [...]";

wow, nice to see that the FSM numbers have grown so fast.

"[...states regarding] alternative and complementary medicines, so-called [aka sCAM!...]";

loving it.  Us skeptics usually consider CAM as sCAM, because that which complements and that which is alternative should really be such, and since so much is usually nonsense, therein s=so-called.

"in this most scientific of all ages, pseudosciences [and] false ideologies [...] about health are still foisted upon the public. As doctors and scientists we saw public harm being done [...] you have to really do a lot of scientific studies to prove whether something is effective or not [...] our universities have go to be bastions of good science. Science that has a good evidence base, where experimental work has confirmed that this is for real [...] to champion evidence-based medicine [...] to improve the protection of the consumer [...regarding] health fraud [...] research is terribly important [...]";

one type of harm I'll mention, since the topic here is basically ACADEMIC, is the harm done to education consumers who participate in falsely-labeled-as-science programs.  They are therein miseducated and brainwashed, which is totally the opposite of post-secondary education's mission. For instance, it is quite heinous to see a naturopathy degree posed as within science, and then see the primary text full of nonscience, the science-ejected, and the just plain old cultic.

 "[...these practices and ideas lacking] scientific evidence [...like chiropractic's] mysterious energy flow [...that] innate intelligence in the spine that controls the health of most organs in the body [...which is] metaphysical rather than physical [...]";

ye old archaic vitalism nonsense.

"[...without evidence like TCM's] merdians [...with] no scientific evidence what[so]ever [...and is rather] antiscientific [...] teaching pseudosciences as if there was a evidence base for them [...] as if there was a scientific base to support them [...] these dangerous practices [...] we're talking about the pseudosciences [...wherein] there's absolutely no evidence, and could be no evidence to support them [...these] nonsciences [...like] homeopathy [...yet such is posed within] a bachelor of science degree [like] chiropractic [...]";

reminds me of my US naturopathy school days, wherein the science-exterior is posed as within science / science-based, though not science and actually sectarian supernaturalism and kind.

"[...] totally ridiculous concept[s...like] iridology, reflexology, healing touch therapy, kinesiology [along with homeopathy aka things NDs do...] energy medicine [...and there's the] naturopath [who is antivaccine...]";

hear, hear.

001.b. Phelp's:

Note: whom I find STRANGELY inconsistent in her considerations.  She speaks of evidence being so important, but also not to delineate 'good from bad', and therein truth from falsehood, or better choices from worse choices.  She speaks of 'consumer protection' and 'informed consent' basically, yet for whatever reason it seems to me that CAM's mislabeling and misrepresentation of what is basically science-ejected nonsense as 'in evidence scientifically speaking' is fine, particularly academically.

"Dr Kerryn Phelps [is a] General Practitioner and President of the Australasian Integrative Medicine Association [...and defends] natural therapies [...aka the] integrative medicine movement [...aka] supportive treatments [...]";

synonyms.

"we need to try to get away from this divisive, hostile position [...this] combative, hostile, divisive position [...] that this group has created [...] that Professor Dwyer and his Friends of Science in Medicine [who] I like to call 'the enemies of choice in health care' have started to create [...or she says] the so-called Friends of Science in Medicine [...]";

my simple observation is this: FSM has as their main trust the MISLABELING of what is not science as science ACADEMICALLY.  Yet, here we have the commerce-choice defense.  That does not follow.  Science is, as I've heard time and time again in terms of the intrascientific, HOSTILE -- hostile to claims until they justify themselves with EVIDENCE.  And there is that reverse accusation here: that FSM are not friendly to science or medicine...that they are not friendly.  'Boo-hoo, they won't be my friend'.

[...and she speaks of] naturopathy [...and] science [...and] what's in the patient's best interest [...respecting] patient preferences [...which] has the best chance of being effective for them [...] we help the consumer, our patients, to be discerning consumers, to be able to put to them informed evidence [...] informed answers [...] real advice [...] to enhance the health of the people who come under our care [...] to be able to provide real choice for patients, real information, as much evidence as we can, that we support research";

the irony is killing me. THE TRUTH is in a patient's best interest, to then discern by being informed about REALITY, and then informed consent follows.  Efficacy is based upon science...how else is something known via a rigorous, tested, confirmed process?  Just simply WOW.

"I'd like to see anybody show harm from reflexology. If homeopathy is as useless as he says then he should not be worried about harm there either [...]";

first, if one were to, sticking with the ACADEMIC context of the ABC web page title, enroll in one of these programs labeled science and it is not...I see quite an amount of harm.  It's commercial fraud, first and foremost, and academic NONSENSE.  I have many many saved sources from the naturopathy side stating that both reflexology and homeopathy are SCIENCE.

"[and she claims such therapies are] strongly supported by evidence [...of] and evidence base that respects the patient's choice [...] a hierarchy of evidence [...] to say that, as he did, that traditional Chinese medicine has to scientific basis is just purely wrong [...the scientific papers are] robust [...not] pseudoscience [...and she mentions] yin, yan and merdians";

bullshit, in a tuxedo.

"medicine can't claim to be entirely evidence-based [...] if you feel better you keep using it, it's really that simple";

there we go: forget science and stick with prescientific confirmatory modes like what maintained 1600 years of Galenic junk medical thought. And the faults of medicine still do not excuse nonscience programs academically classifying themselves as science.


"we need to back away from saying this is good and this is bad. We need to say what is going to be in the best interest of patients";

this is quite a summation / microcosm of irrationality: lets not judge things based upon their merit!  And somehow in not delineating between what is best and worst, we'll magically arrive at what's best.

Note: so, I just find so much of the Phelp's rebuttal to be false, illogical, irrational, fallacy-laden, evasive, and not actually complementary or alternative therein...so sCAMMY.
Post a Comment