Your point is well taken asanta. It is becoming harder and harder for the public to distinguish between real medical treatments and quack treatments. I was having this exact conversation with a patient the other day who was asking me about a “prostate medicine” he had heard about on the radio. It turned out to be one of those quack herbal concoctions, but I had heard the add and they make it sound like a legitimate medical treatment. He was complaining how hard it is for the average person to tell the difference. When major medical centers start promoting these things for financial gain it certainly does make them look more legitimate in the eyes of the average person who is already having trouble telling them apart or already wants to believe in them.

Yes, I think many health care providers are a large part of the problem. We advertise chiropractic services on our website, which gives it a certain legitimacy. This is considered acceptable both because some of the docs believe in it, many more think it’s stupid but harmless, and nobody wants to be labeled “closed-minded,” and also because it makes the practice money. Yet putting up a summary of the lack of evidence for efficacy or safety is considered hostile and inflammatory. Lots of folks are surprised when I explain how unrpoven or poutright disproven CAM therapies are because they’ve been recommended by other docs and for humans they are covered by insurance, so how could they not work? *sigh*

I am frustrated that I can take all of my CEUs to renew my license as woo woo CAM classes, and when I’m reading articles in so called respected nursing journals, they all include CAM treatments for serious ailments along with evidenced based treatments. We are supposed to be doing evidence based practice. Most of the nurses I work with believe in one woo woo or the other, mostly because it is presented in our journals as if the are legitimate treatments—-which they are not!

You people are looking at it all wrong.  One of the problems with our modern technological society is that our advances have protected people far more than they would have been in prior centuries.  This means we have blocked survival of the fittest.  Now, if we let all of those who aren’t interested enough or bright enough to learn more about medical and health treatments, use the CAM and woo woo type cures, after a few generations, we’ll have raised the intelligence and desire for learning in the remaining population.  So, be happy that many want to go that way.  Besides, we need more population control. 

Occam

Not bad Occam. I can see you are a “glass half full” kind of guy . If I can play devils advocate to your silver lining though . Lets say all the CAM fans convince the powers that be to put more and more money into these looney treatments. The money has to come from some where. Money that would normally go for good scientific research dries up and treatments based on proven technologies are less available because there are limited funds. Then the fittest ( those who are likely to choose treatments known to have a beneficial effect) may lose their competative advantage because they can’t make use of their superior intelligence in this environment.

Smart people need to be politically savvy as well or their advantage is wasted. Unfortunately those two talents don’t always go hand in hand.

Occam - 23 November 2008 09:58 PM

This means we have blocked survival of the fittest.

I don’t think we have. The problem with evolution is that no one ever knows what is “in.” Who could have guessed 80 million years ago that some small nocturnal monotremes were going to evolve to dominate the earth one day?

George - 24 November 2008 07:46 AM

Occam - 23 November 2008 09:58 PM

This means we have blocked survival of the fittest.

I don’t think we have. The problem with evolution is that no one ever knows what is “in.” Who could have guessed 80 million years ago that some small nocturnal monotremes were going to evolve to dominate the earth one day?

I think Occam just meant our own biased view of the fittest ( ie. people who think rationally)

I don’t know what Occam meant, but clearly the rationally thinking ones are far from being the fittest. Look at Europe.

George - 24 November 2008 08:06 AM

I don’t know what Occam meant, but clearly the rationally thinking ones are far from being the fittest. Look at Europe.

  Give ‘em time, George.  It’ll probably only be a few years when the U.S. sinks into third world status run by Citibank or the Bank of Dubai, et al. 

Occam