Reply #24: Perhaps you noticed that I freely linked to a site that didn't automatically [View All]

[kentauros]

give a positive review. I don't expect you to think that I did that on purpose, but I did. Because I'm open to all views, not just the one that science says is the one true answer. Did you look at the NCAM site at all? As I understand the NIH and NCAM, they are also following the scientific method, or did you miss this: "Research-based information on treatments and conditions."

Please correct me if I'm wrong (and I may be) but doesn't "Research-based" strongly imply "scientific method"? If it doesn't, then why would a respected government agency like the NIH allow such a claim on one of their sites?

Here's what you said to me in your previous reply:

It doesn't work alone, because otherwise people would see it for what it is? It can also take credit, where none is due?

This is where I got the implication that you felt that mainstream medicine doesn't need anything else to complement it. If you've ever looked at the content of any OTC medicines (as well as prescription medicines), you would have noticed that they work almost exclusively by one compound, whether that's aspirin, ibuprofen, Diphenhydramine, albuterol sulfate or whatever single compound intended for that particular ailment. However, if you don't want to fall asleep at work or behind the wheel because you needed an antihistamine that really worked without knocking you out, and didn't just steal your money (as happens with me with regards to the various "non-drowsy" medicines) then you'll research the unproven methods and find one that does work. Who cares if it's not proven by science; all that matters is it works for you and right now! ;)

As for your statement that doctors provide healing based on "proven" methods, you might want to look at a thread I noticed in the septics forum about doctors banding together to provide healthcare with unproven methods. I don't recall the specifics of the thread, only that the subject was being mocked, for obvious reasons.

Now, to address your last comment, because I'm getting the impression that your reading comprehension, or perhaps your reading attention, is lacking. Here's my second paragraph again, with a few key words highlighted, so you won't ass-u-me:

What I'm getting from your "argument" is that you've done zero research into Complementary Medicine. Whether you look at the NIH site, or Wikipedia, or wherever that discusses it in a fairly neutral light, they all acknowledge that it does some good in certain areas. I don't know the subject well enough to list those successes off the top of my head, but there's Google if you care to research it at all.

So, you're not reading carefully, and you're not researching, other than to find that which backs up your assertion that all "alternative" medicine is bad. Whereas I am taking the position that it hasn't all been thoroughly researched, though there is at least one respected government agency attempting to do just that, and publishes unbiased reports. That is, if it doesn't work, they'll say so, just as they'll also say so if a certain complementary approach does work.

I'm completely open to things not working in CAM, as well as allopathic medicine. (We've seen that often enough, haven't we?) There are plenty of methods I'm wary about, too, but will continue to research all avenues, not just those by accepted sources. Again, it's always best to get the whole picture, instead of the narrow-focused one.


Okay, you can ignore everything I've said above, if you'll answer the following questions:

Why argue with me at all, when you know you won't convince me to think differently?

Do you truly care and have compassion for those people willing to use alternative methods to heal themselves and you want to convince them otherwise with the same compassion and caring attitude?

Or is it really that you are disgusted that people aren't just doing as you (and others) say and using whatever the mainstream dictates as proper medicine, based solely on proven science?