Slashdot Mirror
Growth of Pseudoscience Harming Australian Universities
wired_parrot writes "The international credibility of Australia's universities is being undermined by the increase in the 'pseudoscientific' health courses they offer, two academics write in a recent article decrying that a third of Australian universities now offer courses in such subjects as homeopathy and traditional Chinese medicine, which undermines science-based medicine. 'As the number of alternative practitioners graduating from tertiary education institutions increases, further health-care resources are wasted, while the potential for harm increases.'"
I think people that use homeopathic medicine should be allowed to marry.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
It doesn't take much. Just a tiny, tiny, tiny bit. Diluted well. It's more effective that way.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Seems that Australia is "diluting" its talent.
YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
my favorite quote concerning alternative medicines is... "If Alternative medicine practices worked, they wouldn't be alternative any more" not sure where it came from.
Just part of our decent into a post-industrial dark age, where technology is magic to most folks.
And since it's magic, why shouldn't other forms of magic work?
Check your premises.
some chiropractors now extended their manipulation of the spine to children, and claimed that this could cure asthma, allergies, bedwetting, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, colic, fever and numerous other problems, and could serve as a substitute for vaccination.
Evidence? Studies? Clinical trials? Nothing has been presented to support the claim that chiropractors can cure asthma or bedwetting, let alone the really bizarre claims (a substitute for vaccination?).
There is no conspiracy or closed-mindedness. When evidence that herbal medicines do work, scientists embrace them:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_marijuana
You see that long and extensive list of studies? Did you notice that the scientific criticisms were almost entirely focused on smoking as a method of ingestion? Did you notice that the non-scientific criticisms were political, driven by America's far-right government agenda that has been pushed for decades now?
These scientists are objecting to the teaching of treatments that have no evidence to support their use, which have not been the subject of any studies, and for which no statement of efficacy can be made (how do we know these treatments do not cause more harm than good? how do we know that these treatments are not just a waste of time?).
Palm trees and 8
Hell, I'd be happy if they just re-introduced Rhetoric and Logic as required courses. That alone would knock out at least half of the garbage we have to put up with in both media and society...
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
That includes many things that we take advantage of daily -- even before we start on the stuff which is ridiculed by people like you
[citation needed]
Are scientists representatives of God?
No, scientists are just people who back up their claims with evidence, collected and analyzed according to careful procedures. Representatives of deities are the people who demand that we believe their claims regardless of the available evidence, because we are supposed to place value on "faith."
Do they really know EVERYTHING?
Did someone claim that scientists know everything? Scientists conclude their publications with lists of unanswered questions, which is what motivates scientific investigations in the first place. Scientists are not claiming that treatments which have not been investigated do not work -- they are claiming that there is no way to know, until those treatments are investigated.
I think a better question is this: do you think that you know everything? If you do not demand evidence, then how do you determine what is or is not true (or which treatments are or are not effective)?
Palm trees and 8
There are lots of things that work without the benefit of science,
Er, not sure what that means. Things work or not because of the underlying physics of the universe. Science does not make things work or not.
Science explains things. It gives understanding. That may help devise other things that work by using the modelling powers of science.
lots of things that science is not yet able to measure,
Is there something specifically you have in mind?
and lots of things that science does not yet understand. That includes many things that we take advantage of daily --
Sure. Heck, science doesn't even understand gravity really.
even before we start on the stuff which is ridiculed by people like you.
And here we go. There's your leap. What things are these things that are taken advantage of on a daily basis and are ridiculed by the likes of me?
Do you really believe that Science explains everything? No
No scientist would every claim that - we'd be out of a job for a start. You're setting up a straw man.
Then why can't you accept that some real things may exist outside of the bounds of current scientific dogma.
You're angling to leap from "not everything is explained by science" to "my whacky theories of the world are true".
Just because science is not complete doesn't mean (e.g.) homeopathy works.
fundamentalists... fundamentalists... fundamentalists...
Inigo Montoya would like a word with you.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
the problem with your argument is the definition of "better".
I was simplifying for the OP who clearly didn't understand science.
but if you're talking about reducing pain, then it gets complicated.
Yes certainly.
objectively, you can see that a proposed treatment has the same result that a placebo does. does this mean that the treatment is worthless?
Well, ethics aside, placebos aren't worthless treatments. But alternative-medicine placebos aren't any better than regular placebos.
but what do we do in the case of conditions where a "placebo" works very well for a significant fraction of people? shouldn't we fund some research into why the placebo works?
Certainly. The placebo effect is amazing and well worthy of scientific research.
Homeopathy for instance isn't. The science is done and it has been shown to be a simple instance of the placebo effect.
Fun fact: the placebo effect works even if people know they are taking placebos!
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I don't mind the fluff being taught. What I object to is the teaching of outright falsehoods. Teaching homeopathy as medicine is akin to teaching a history course in which France was founded by Kiss after they'd defeated the Samoans by destroying their Deathstar.
Courses must be rigorous to be accredited - not three years spent wankibg for course credits.
-- Using the preview button since 2005
Here's what's going on in alternative medicine in Australia. Unfortunately this article is behind a paywall, so I'll give you an excerpt. (It helps to understand that when you give a lung x-ray, you have a good chance of finding spots that nobody can really interpret, that usually turn out to be harmless.)
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1110812
What's the Alternative? The Worldwide Web of Integrative Medicine
Ranjana Srivastava, F.R.A.C.P.
Department of Medical Oncology, Monash Medical Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
N Engl J Med 2012; 366:783-785 March 1, 2012
Out of curiosity, an impressionable woman in her 30s attends an integrative medicine exhibition; having recently had a child, she's been sleep-deprived and wants to investigate natural remedies. At the seminar, she wins a door prize — a blood test that promises to diagnose cancer. She was considering getting a blood test anyway and seizes this opportunity for a more comprehensive workup. After all, you can't be too careful about avoiding cancer.
Weeks later, she receives a call from an apologetic but alarmed stranger telling her she has advanced cancer.
“How do you know?” she gasps.
“Your blood test is positive for circulating tumor cells.”
“What does that mean?” she cries.
He sends her a three-page report and tells her to seek immediate help. She spends a nail-biting week awaiting an appointment with the recommended integrative health expert.
Glancing at the report, the expert declares, “You have advanced non–small-cell lung cancer. You need treatment now.” The woman is petrified: Has her teenage smoking habit come back to haunt her?
“Are you sure?” she asks.
“Absolutely. There are circulating tumor cells in your blood.”
Tears streaming down her face, the woman asks, “What now?”
The practitioner prescribes a 12-week course of intravenous vitamin C, at a cost of $6,000, paid up front. Without further discussion, an appointment is made.
[Gets a CT scan, which shows 2 2mm nodules. They could be lung cancer.]
The hunt for a rapid cure brings the woman to my office. Relating her story, she shifts between self-assurance and sheepishness. “I know you find this incredible, but I need your help. I am dying of cancer.”
“There's no evidence of cancer,” I reply, seeking to reassure her.
Instead, her tone sharpens: “But I have circulating tumor cells! How can you say that?”
Incredulous, I try to explain too many things. The blood test is a long way from being validated for clinical use. It was unscrupulous even to offer it. Does it make sense to her that it was sent to an unheard-of overseas laboratory for processing? Why did no one recommend that she see an oncologist?
[Demands a PET scan. PET scan clear, the 2 nodules on the CT have disappeared. Probably transient foci of inflammation. Srivastava tells her, "There is no cancer." Woman still insists she has lung cancer. Demands to see a surgeon. Surgeon refuses to see her.]
If you look at all the homeopathic remedies available, there's an enormous number of them out there. Obviously, it's total BS, but its practitioners have made a real pseudoscience out of it, with tables of ailments and which corresponding remedy to try (the remedies themselves being some item, perhaps a poisonous substance, diluted so much into water that there's probably none left in the vial of water you're buying).
Homeopathy has been around since the early 19th century, and has been a fairly organized practice for almost the entire time, which has meant that it's been able to iterate and refine itself enough to have developed a very complex and mature (though not effective) set of doctrines.
One thing that's interesting, and surprising at first, is that homeopathy's success in the 19th century was due in large part to the fact that it worked better than many other medical practices, in that patients treated by homeopathic remedies often had better outcomes than patients treated by other methods. This seems to be at odds with the known fact that homeopathy doesn't work, but if you think about it for a bit it makes sense. Remember that ancient practices like bloodletting survived until well into the 19th century, and that scientific medicine was very immature -- the common use of anesthesia dates to the 1850s, and germ theory wasn't generally accepted until fairly late in the century. Both traditional and scientific medical practices were often harmful to the patient -- going to the doctor could kill you.
Now consider what a homeopathic doctor does. He visits you, gives you a checkup, then gives you a prescription for a lot of water with a few molecules of something else in it. Put another way, his treatment is bed rest, plenty of fluids, a nice placebo, and a little TLC. That regimen won't ever harm you, and for a lot of diseases and conditions it'll always be the preferred method of treatment. Compared with the sometimes incompetent, often misguided, and occasionally murderous regimes of other forms of 19th century medicine, it's no surprise that homeopathy was a popular and successful practice.
That says nothing about it's place in the 21st century, of course.