It seemed to me you considered these good and chiropracty not good, or at least that we needed to acknowledge that there were quacks every time we brought up the subject of alternative medicine
Simon, the basis of chiropracty is bunk. There is no factual basis to the theory that subluxations impede "life force". Therefore any chiropractor following only the tenets of chiropracty can only help you because some of the techniques they use accidentally have effects other than that which they intend. Unless they use the methods of EBM they cannot even diagnose what your problem is.
As I said before, I would use allopathic medicine in a variety of circumstances. I do however consider it a poor alternative as a base response. It will only be my first line of healing in emergency room type situations and when I want a diagnosis of a potentially life threatening or otherwise catastrophic disease. It will not always be my treatment choice after such a diagnosis.
I emphatically disagree with all but the last sentence here. EBM is the only method by which you can get an accurate diagnosis (and even that is not infallible). Undiagnosed by EBM, alternative treatments are simply a crapshoot even if we assume they are effective.
If you're lucky you might be okay. But, for instance, back pain can be caused by serious medical issues that chiropracty cannot help. You could have a ruptured disk, a serious organ disease or disorder, or cancer. If you go to a chiropracter who is not trained in EBM diagnostics your disease could progress to a critical or terminal phase before you seek proper care.
I want MD medications and often interventions need to be other-efforts-have-failed options because they are often damaging to the body and tend towards suppressing symptoms or replacing rather than supporting the body's efforts to get through a disease.
Any pharmaceutically active compound is going to have side effects, whether it is a prescription medication or an herbal concoction you purchased from a guru. This is one of my primary contentions with people's belief in alternative medicine (particularly that which is labeled as "natural"), this utterly fallacious belief that because it is relatively unprocessed and not manufactured that it is miraculously benign. In reality the only reason "natural" remedies tend to be benign is because they are typically inactive. (I'll give exception to dietary regulation and supplementation on a limited basis.)
I am however trying to point out that your above description of the choices is skewed.
No, it's really not. Where alternative remedies can be shown to be effective and even sometimes superior to standard medicine I'm all for them. But choices should be made based upon facts, not erroneous beliefs. Where is the bias?
This would mean you think my health and successes using alternative medicine is all placebo. To me this borders on religious belief on your part. Oddly enough the pharmaceutical companies think that traditional herbals are not simply relying on placebo effect or they would simply choose plants at random in the Amazon, for example, rather than following traditional healers around and further studying their processing techniques.
No, I don't. It's very likely you get some benefit from your chiropracter's treatments. I simply contend that those benefits have nothing to do with the chiropractic model of disease.
Herbal remedies are somewhat different. I don't entirely disagree with their use. There are, however, other considerations when using herbal remedies. For instance, dosage becomes a problem since there's no way to measure exactly what you're getting, as do the deleterious effects of the compounds in herbal remedies. This is especially problematic when multiple herbs are taken or when taken with pharmaceuticals. Particularly since the belief that they are benign leads patients not to reveal their use.
Of course one must be skeptical. But this must be a broadly aimed skepticism. I aim my skepticism at both the accepted medical practices and the alternative ones. I find the former very naive about the side effects of their approach and what ongoing most promotes health as a baseline in a body.
In comparison to what? EBM does far more detailed research in this area than any alternative practice which relies primarily upon anecdote. In EBM, pharmaceuticals in particular, long range, detailed studies are performed to analyze exactly what the side effects are. Can you find me any such detail regarding alternative remedies? If not, whence comes the assumption?
I mean those guys are still talking about H. Pylori as being THE CAUSE of GI ulcers. Rather than as an opportunist that benefits after the real causes have damaged the lining. It has just come out that H. Pylori protects children against asthma. Perhaps MDs will start to rethink about the issue and see H. Pylori as part of the healthy flora of our GI system and that other things are actually causal here. I use this one example to show the problems in the mentality there.
Please think about this example. You're describing scientific advancement. No one is stating that EBM is perfect and that it knows everything. Certainly it makes mistakes.
However, one of the aspects of the scientific process is that the testing and integration of new information is inherent. It progresses with extreme rapidity and precision. Take for consideration, western medicine which has gone from a belief in noxious vapors and the 4 humors, through the germ theory of disease, and onto detailed understanding of viruses, bacteria, prions, neurological disorders, genetic disorders, etc, etc, etc. in a little over 100 years.
Ayurvedic "medicine" still uses bloodletting as a method for eliminating toxins for godsake! Chiropracty is based in the belief of vitalism. And homepathy was conceived in 1807 (from a basis in that period's western medicine I might add) from pure speculation of a "law of similars" and " "spirit-like medicinal powers". All of these are utterly unfounded beliefs once common practice in "western" medicine and since
disproven and rejected by it.
Considering these facts, how can you assert that it is EBM that is the practice that is narrow minded and naive when many of the founding precepts and treatments used by these alternative practices were once part of "western" medicine only to be disproven and discarded or improved upon?
Now there has been some shifting around this, especially in Europe and MDs are much more holistic and more will to collaborate with alternative practictioners or at least be open to patients using other methods. Rather than trying to make anyone who uses alternative approaches think they are being idiots who are throwing money at quacks. That last mentioned response has been wrongheaded and damaging and was rather irrational.
Hey, I'm all for this. You might want to take a check though and make sure your reaction hasn't led you into the same mistakes made by the medical community of false belief and prejudice. By my account you have an overly narrow view of standard "western" medicine and a loosely accepting view of alternative practices.
One last comment, I touched on this but I would like to make it explicit. If a practice, herb, or treatment can be scientifically demonstrated to have a beneficial medical use and a positive effect for patients EBM has, does, and will acknowledge and incorporate it. If a formerly accepted practice is demonstrated to be ineffective or harmful it is excised. This seems to me a very open and rational approach. I don't see the same type of acceptance or self-correction built in to these other paradigms. Do you?
~Raithere
Try reading the replies to the article, they are scathing. 
