Growth of Pseudoscience Harming Australian Universities 566
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.'"
But a plecebo is the most effective drug of all (Score:5, Informative)
These "pseudo science" articles indicate that pseudo science works better than science seems to indicate. :vulgar language)
Plecebo works better than the real thing [youtube.com] (warning
Accupunture works, doesn't matter where [arstechnica.com]
Accupunture works [arstechnica.com]
Some of it works, including the placebos (Score:2, Informative)
This sounds like a turf/money battle started by a mainstream academic apparatchik who doesn't want to actually sort through the existing pile of evidence, let alone continue evaluating. Some of the methods listed in the article actually work reliably for some things. Others may actually cause harm. Yet others are placebos so advanced that modern medicine may take decades to catch up. The important thing is to keep using actual evidence to make decisions rather than to just accept the word of reactionaries who gesture vaguely at supposed piles of evidence which, on closer inspection, often say the opposite of what the pseudo-skeptic reactionary claimed.
Re:Fundamentalists (Score:5, Informative)
Alternative therapy is outside the domain of science because science
Utter rubbish.
measure stuff with a physical instrument (human perception not being good enough).
Again, utter rubbish.
A trial (simplified): give people (a) a placebo and (b) homeopathic treatment. See which get better and which don't. Doesn't even require anything more than perception. Do I percieve this person as dead yes/no?
The results: homeopathy is no better than a placebo.
If it doesn't make you better, then by what reasoning or intuition is it doing any good at all?
So science has immediately disqualified itself from judging alternative medicine, yet still the science fundamentalists continue pushing their doctrine outside of its bounds.
More tosh. Simplifying, either medicine makes you better or it does not. Science can tell you if it does.
Please, in future learn *something* about science before dismissing it out of hand. And if you don't have the inclination to do that, then please carefully consider your comments about "fundemantalists".
Re:Perhaps study these treatments scientifically? (Score:5, Informative)
I think you'll find that it's so roundly rejected *because* it's already been researched properly and didn't hold up.
Re:Fundamentalists (Score:4, Informative)
Science is not opposed to homeopathy or alternative medicine per se. If the course of treatment cannot be measured by physical measurements, that is perfectly fine. However, if the treatment does not have an effect on outcome of the patient, it is rightly labeled as ineffective. For example, clinical trials of massage and acupuncture have proven the effectiveness of these treatments for specific conditions. http://apps.who.int/medicinedocs/en/d/Js4926e/ and http://nccam.nih.gov/health/massage However, homeopathy specifically the serial dilutions of compounds or extracts in water, has never been proven effective in any clinical trial and goes against basic precepts of chemistry and biology.
Re:Using what works (Score:5, Informative)
Well there's this bit from Tim Minchin's storm [youtube.com] - "Do you know how they call alternative medicine that has been proven to work? Medicine."
Re:Homie Opethie (Score:5, Informative)
Whoa, whoa wait a second. Art history is a non-serious field, on par with a course on Star Trek? Having you been smoking the straw man teaching your philosophy class?
Re:Fundamentalists (Score:1, Informative)
"Alternative medicine" is a catch-all phrase for pretty much anything that is not a pharmaceutical. There are plenty of things that are classified as alternative medicine that can be proven by science. The biggest problem in alternative medicine is that typically (always?) the treatment is inexpensive and not protected under patent. That means that no one will invest money to prove its efficacy because they are not the exclusive benefactors of the results.
In the US, the law says that anything that is used to cure, prevent, or ameliorate disease is by definition a drug. The only companies who invest the money to get FDA approval are ones that have a patent to control the return on the investment. That means that only drugs will solve medical problems. The pharmaceutical industry has a financial interest in perpetuating your perception that everything 'alternative' is junk. The companies that offer real measurable solutions to medical problems but lack control of the returns also lack the ability to widely promote their solution because 1) they have a ton of competition, and 2) they do not have FDA approval and therefore cannot advertise an actual solution (they also have to fight the perception that inexpensive solutions are worthless).
Disclaimer: I run an 'alternative medicine' company selling products with quantifiable results. I know something about what I am talking about.
example of harm (Score:5, Informative)
The saddest example I see of pseudoscience is in the birth communities, medical technology has taken us out of the tragic "good old days" when 1 in 10 babies and 1 in 100 mothers didn't survive a birth. But suddenly everyone thinks it's a great idea to run away from hospitals and doctors and use untrained homebirth attendants, even for high risk pregnancy. In Australia death rates are four times higher for homebirth babies [blogspot.com].
Having recently been pregnant and seen the "trust NATURE" mantras thrown at me again and again in online communities, I'm so afraid of who else is being mislead. But the consequences are unimaginable.
Re:Perhaps study these treatments scientifically? (Score:4, Informative)
If shark cartiledge was shown to be effective "many times", then how come the best clinical research [nih.gov] we have on glucosamine/chondroitin still inconclusive?
And here's the result of a 2010 metaanalysis of the literature:
So, does it make sense now why nobody paid attention to the research showing that shark cartilidge was efficacious? That research was almost certainly flawed, because serious research institutions have been unable to reproduce any effect.
You have been duped.
Re:Hypocracy (Score:4, Informative)
>I find it amusing and depressing that modern medical science has fallen so far. Everything that is known by modern medicine owes its beginnings in ancient medical practices such as Chinese medicine and homeopathy.
Far from having "fallen so far," modern medicine has come a long way since its roots. Polio killed people when I was a child, and I challenge you to find a homeopathic polio vaccine.
>A perfect example of this is aspirin. Hundreds, if not thousands, of years ago, the medical minds of the day would give their patients tea brewed from willow bark to ease their pain. Where is aspirin found in nature? Willow bark.
You seem to be confusing herbal medicine with homeopathy. I have a degree in botany and actually have studied and used herbal medicine (more as a hobby than anything.) Yes, willow bark, Salix sp. contains salicin, which is similar to acetylsalicylic acid. The concentration in the willow bark varies widely from species to species, and willows are relatively difficult to key out. In species with enough active ingredient to be effective, the concentration can vary from 0.01% to over 10% depending on time of year, growing location and other factors. That's a 100-fold difference in concentration of the active ingredient making it fairly difficult to make sure you get an effective dose and don't O.D. Personally, I find it easier and safer to take two 500 mg. tablets. Also, you don't want to give willow bark tea to a child, because of Reyes Syndrome, and I have yet to find the Tylenol Bush.
>Natural cures and remedies are available for most ailments,
No, they aren't. There are no natural remedies for polio, smallpox, yellow fever, scarlet fever, TB, Ebola, rabies, cholera, and a whole long list of others.
>but modern medicine has dismissed the natural treatments in favor of synthetic solutions.
That's because they work better. There is a treatment for breast cancer derived from the bark of the Pacific yew tree, Taxus brevifolia. If your wife, daughter, or sister has breast cancer, you really want them taking the commercial drug under the supervision of a good oncologist, rather than sucking on yew bark. Also, before a synthetic version was developed, the tree was damn near wiped out from people stripping the bark to sell.
>These same synthetic solutions have lead to the rise of super-germs and man-made diseases Mother Nature would have nightmares about.
"Super germs" have come about through the overuse of antibiotics, an entirely different issue.
Re:This is the danger... (Score:5, Informative)
There are things about the human body and mind that science does not understand yet.
Name five.
You might have to to give a bit more in the way of parameters for this but off the top of my head: