[nearting]

This argument is essentially whataboutism - any issues in the practice of modern evidence-based medicine does not in any way validate the efficacy of homeopathy or similar pseudoscientific approaches. On top of that, arguing that most medical recommendations are unnecessary and overpriced doesn't help the case of homeopathy or chiropractic either - I mean, at that point, why charge patients any more than the cost of sugar or a short massage?

[financltravsty]

It’s not an argument, it’s a discussion. All forms of popular and mass-market medicine are shit. See: Sturgeon’s law. Allopathic, “modern medicine,” and homeopathic.

Allopathic medicine, I would argue, is pseudoscientific because research where placebo does better or negative results are achieved are thrown out and never published. Instead, it’s p-hacked and methodologically-massaged (knowingly and unknowingly) to achieve the results the grants paid for. And even when published, practice does not keep up with the research.

Double blind studies on spinal surgeries are a great example where placebo, stemming from the belief of the patient that he received treatment, is just as effective in alleviating subjective pain. In the placebo case, simply putting the patient under anaesthesia and having him believe he had surgery is enough to resolve spinal pain. Or how about where common spinal surgeries stem from?: surgical experimentation with only flimsy research integrity. The first spinal fusions were essentially no different than lobotomies with how reckless and unethical the practice of experimenting based on loose evidence is. Not even in a research context, but a surgical, and informal one.

And yet, the same results can be found with less drastic and life-changing means. Instead of fusing your spine with titanium screws, you could go to a chiropractor for unexplained back pain. Or better yet, figure out the psychosomatic and physical causes (stress, poor muscle tone, etc.), instead of band-aiding the problem. What a thought!

Homeopathy, chiropractic, osteopathy, “holistic medicine,” etc. are better when they achieve the same results, for less cost (monetary, physical, what have you), when they work, and do not do further harm to the patient.

That doesn’t mean they’re both not scams. But one scam is less harmful en masse than the other. Both use “woo” to achieve the same ends, but neither are honest about it.

[atoav]

You are not wrong in what you're saying, it is just weirdly materialistic.

The problem about homeopathy isn't that it is a placebo or a the result of a study that had shit methodology. The problem with homeopathy is that it is made up bullshit that remains in the health space despite clear evidence it does not work.

Just like with horoscopes, the problem isn't what it does in itself, but where the unchallenged believes lead to. My neighbour died with cancer at the age of 50 as she only wanted "natural" medicine and homeopathy to treat it. A chemo therapy would have likely saved her life her heartbroken kids told me.

So sure, we can pretend there are no side effects of accepting bogus medicine, and even then it is an obvious cash grab, because homeopathy is not cheap. But it being bogus is the main problem.

[Fezzik]

Do you lump MMR vaccines in with popular and mass-market medicine that is shit or homeopathy? How about the polio or HPV vaccine? Or the drugs that suppress HIV? Or setting bones? Or heart surgery, or laser eye surgery, or amputations… all the (vague) claims in your discussion are bunk; the fact there is an unacceptably high number of elective surgeries done does not take away from the fact that all measurable advances in medicine have come from modern medicine. The massive increase we have seen in longevity and quality of life as we age is tied to modern medicine; the fact there are still more discoveries to be made is a given.

[cainxinth]

> Homeopathy, chiropractic, osteopathy, “holistic medicine,” etc. are better when they achieve the same results, for less cost (monetary, physical, what have you), when they work, and do not do further harm to the patient.

That’s a tautology. “X is better than Y when it’s better than Y.” Show us evidence that they are better. But you won’t be able to. Alternative medicines do not generally outperform conventional medicine because they “…do not originate from using the scientific method, but instead rely on testimonials, anecdotes, religion, tradition, superstition, belief in supernatural ‘energies,’ pseudoscience, errors in reasoning, propaganda, fraud, or other unscientific sources.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine