I don't know if and where a conversation might emerge, so I'm posting my response here even though I just posted it at Janet's site. Hope I won't get spanked for spamming.
Argument:
Some of the NCCAM studies seem valuable --e.g., does cranberry juice lower antibiotic levels. Don't these useful studies justify NCCAM's existence?
Counter-argument:
There's a hidden implication in the above argument: that these useful studies would not be done by the NIH due to unfair bias against anything not directly related to drug development.
The hard-working, ethical researchers at the NIH reply, "Oh so I'm aware of promising, low-cost treatments we ought to study but I'm not gonna let that happen. So you have to go around me to NCCAM to get the funds. Do you realize what you're saying? You've just accused me of being on the take. Well, you'd better have evidence to back that up, asshole."
Science is not sectarian. Researchers don't do research in order to promote a particular school of thought or advocacy group. NCCAM, strangely, is sectarian.
Because if you look at the components of the herb, you might figure out the active ingredient. Knowing the active ingredient, you might then figure out how it works in the body. And you might then develop a drug. And that wouldn't help the chiropractors and naturopaths.
Argument: â¨
We ought to study particular CAM therapy X because so many Americans are using X.
Counter-argument:
We have to ask, why are so many people using X? Is it because the line between science and quackery has been blurred?
Taking nonsense seriously brands the nonsense as something serious.
Example: Thimerosal was removed from vaccines not because the CDC had evidence that thimerosal was harmful, but because parents were worried and the CDC hoped to remove their worry.
Unfortunately this intervention by the CDC seemed to prove to many that it was in fact lying when it said thimerosal was not harmful. The intervention caused many to be less trusting rather than more trusting toward the CDC. More than one parent has said to me, "They wouldn't have removed it if it wasn't harmful."
This was awesome guys! Now I want to see PalKid and the Sprogs in a bloggingheads.
I don't know if and where a conversation might emerge, so I'm posting my response here even though I just posted it at Janet's site. Hope I won't get spanked for spamming.
Argument:
Some of the NCCAM studies seem valuable --e.g., does cranberry juice lower antibiotic levels. Don't these useful studies justify NCCAM's existence?
Counter-argument:
There's a hidden implication in the above argument: that these useful studies would not be done by the NIH due to unfair bias against anything not directly related to drug development.
The hard-working, ethical researchers at the NIH reply, "Oh so I'm aware of promising, low-cost treatments we ought to study but I'm not gonna let that happen. So you have to go around me to NCCAM to get the funds. Do you realize what you're saying? You've just accused me of being on the take. Well, you'd better have evidence to back that up, asshole."
Science is not sectarian. Researchers don't do research in order to promote a particular school of thought or advocacy group. NCCAM, strangely, is sectarian.
Here's the evidence: You can study herbs at NCCAM but not the stuff in the herbs.
Because if you look at the components of the herb, you might figure out the active ingredient. Knowing the active ingredient, you might then figure out how it works in the body. And you might then develop a drug. And that wouldn't help the chiropractors and naturopaths.
Argument: â¨
We ought to study particular CAM therapy X because so many Americans are using X.
Counter-argument:
We have to ask, why are so many people using X? Is it because the line between science and quackery has been blurred?
Taking nonsense seriously brands the nonsense as something serious.
Example: Thimerosal was removed from vaccines not because the CDC had evidence that thimerosal was harmful, but because parents were worried and the CDC hoped to remove their worry.
Unfortunately this intervention by the CDC seemed to prove to many that it was in fact lying when it said thimerosal was not harmful. The intervention caused many to be less trusting rather than more trusting toward the CDC. More than one parent has said to me, "They wouldn't have removed it if it wasn't harmful."