Hermes Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/20/ob...tion_netcetera/ I note that this story refers to an alleged quack doctor threatening to sue a Manx ISP. Readers are advised to check out the links to the GMC ruling about the person who is threatening this ISP, and make up their own minds about the worth of this individual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxblue Posted February 21, 2008 Share Posted February 21, 2008 Looks like another con-artist to me. There's another two appearing at the Villa Marina on 30th March 2008. Better not name them just in case they threaten to sue me !. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Poker Posted February 23, 2008 Share Posted February 23, 2008 Alternative medicine is only 'alternative' because it doesn't work. If it worked, it would be mainstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Alternative medicine is only 'alternative' because it doesn't work Actapuncture, Shiatsu and Chiropracters are classed as " Alternative " by the BMA. Yet they give as much help as any GP. Why? Because the BMA don't recognise them because they don't conform and take money of them. So you are talking shoite. Sry but you are . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al Poker Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Actapuncture, Shiatsu and Chiropracters are classed as " Alternative " by the BMA. Yet they give as much help as any GP. Why? Because the BMA don't recognise them because they don't conform and take money of them. So you are talking shoite. If your GP prescribes you only placebos, then I agree. I suppose one of the benefits of alternative medicine is that it's practitioners get to spend longer periods of time with their patients, and can give them the attention that they need. But that isn't a substitute for real, effective, scientifically proven treatment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 the BMA don't recognise them because they don't conform and take money of them. Someone's going to get that money. Alternative medicine is very big business, so let's not pretend that homeopaths and acupuncturists are brave little footsoldiers resisting opression and fighting against The Man - they're just selling a different corporation's product. I'd prefer my money to go on the product of peer reviewed empirical studies, proper labs and someone who's studied human physiology than to someone in a white coat blabbering on about chi, water's memory, and other wonderfully mystical processes and properties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 But that isn't a substitute for real, effective, scientifically proven treatment. Like, Actapuncture, Shiatsu and Chiropracters. Any Medical Board won't pass these as they then will become part of the NHS. I think the best way is to agree but disagree? I'd prefer my money to go on the product of peer reviewed empirical studies, proper labs and someone who's studied human physiology than to someone in a white coat blabbering on about chi, water's memory, and other wonderfully mystical processes and properties. Like the Tholidemide drug? That was a real god send. Tried, tested, released to the public and still a complete fuck up? Actapuncture and Shiatsu has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. A lot longer than modern surgery. Also modern surgery can be related back to ancient islam and their cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Like the Tholidemide drug? That was a real god send. Tried, tested, released to the public and still a complete fuck up? Famously, Thalidomide was not properly tested. Actapuncture and Shiatsu has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. A lot longer than modern surgery. Firstly, modern surgery isn't the sole form of modern medicine. Secondly, since when was the longevity of an idea been equivalent to a form of proof or validation of that idea? The belief that women are inferior to men and/or poorly suited to worldly affairs has been around for thousands of years and has been common to many cultures, it's not right though. Also modern surgery can be related back to ancient islam and their cultures. What's the point you're trying to make? That it's bad because it's associated with Islam, or that since it has its roots in an ancient culture then all ancient medicine is legitimate? Either case is wrong. With regards to the latter (the former is obvious), surgery has been around for a lot longer than that, with evidence for its practice appearing throughout most ancient civilizations. It saw a period of advancement in Medieval Islamic societies, but then you'd be hard pushed to find a scientific discipline that didn't prosper during that period in those states. The difference between surgery and the stuff you're recommending is that surgical practices continually evolved and were developed through practical experiences based on empirical evidence, not a mystical doctrine. My problem with so-called alternative medicine isn't really that it's bollocks. If an otherwise healthy person wants to squander their cash on hocus pocus to soothe their aches and pains, then they're fully entitled to do so. What I find objectionable are the con artists who claim that their home brew remedies work wonders with Cancer and other terminal conditions and profit from fear and tragedy, and those who promise some miraculous life improving medicines to make up for their customer's inadequacies (such as stupid people hoping fish oil will give their dim offspring the intelligence of ten tigers, in doing so suggesting that their kids should be more worried about genetic factors than what supplements they can take) Also, if the big pharmaceutical and medical establishments are as corrupt and evil as you suggest, then wouldn't they simply take alternative therapies and medicines, add some passive agent or auxilliary procedure that does nothing but allows them to claim its an improved form and patent it, and then rake in all the cash currently filling the wallets of people who produce acupuncture pins and herbal remedies? It's not very likely, not least because modern medicine is subject to rigorous tests and regulation that would soon expose what they were actually doing was bottling up false hope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Actapuncture and Shiatsu has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. A lot longer than modern surgery. Also modern surgery can be related back to ancient islam and their cultures. Having sex with virgins to cure aids has been around a while in Africa too, does it's longevity somehow legitamise it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted February 24, 2008 Share Posted February 24, 2008 Actapuncture and Shiatsu has been around for hundreds if not thousands of years. A lot longer than modern surgery. Also modern surgery can be related back to ancient islam and their cultures. Having sex with virgins to cure aids has been around a while in Africa too, does it's longevity somehow legitamise it? even if it did work there's no cure in peel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.