sdyer@bbncc5.UUCP (Steve Dyer) (08/25/85)
On first approach, this looks like a stand-off: Stanions or Stoll says
something, the rational community (myself, Oliver, Banks, countless
others) says something else, and then S & S counter with something
else, all of us standing forth self-righteously. What's a poor net.med
reader to do?
The key here, of course, is that no one has to be swayed by rhetoric: words
have no special power in this discussion; this is not a debating contest.
Whoever has the last word before quitting from exhaustion doesn't
necessarily win. Luckily, there is a more powerful tool at hand, and it
has been mentioned again and again: the scientific method as the sole
criterion for determing the appropriateness of a therapy. And, indeed,
note that S&S have NOT ever attempted to discredit this approach. Rather,
they cloak their own comments in the thin-skin of pseudo-science, making
statements which APPEAR scientific, but dissolve upon cross-examination as
being unproven and grounded in totally unscientific principles. Witness
Stanions' latest straight-faced case-history: "patient dying of accute
[sic.] constipation..." Indeed! I could quote at length, but all you
need do is reread their earlier contributions to net.med to understand this.
Stanions and Stoll would make wonderful revival-tent preachers, for their
capacity for "testimony" is unsurpassed. What they forget, and what is
important for all confused net.med readers to understand, is that the human
body is remarkably resilient. Left alone, the great majority of people who
seek medical treatment (note, I didn't say 'who have diseases') tend to
feel better on their own, without any treatment other than time. Of
course, there is always the sorrowful 10-30% who DON'T, but those are
too few to overcome the remarkable ability of humans for self-deception.
If 70% of MY patients got well, I'd probably think I was going a good job,
too. But, as you see, this statistic means nothing. It is the impersonality
and impartiality of the scientific study, and the careful analysis of data,
which truly indicates whether ANY therapy is effective. And, this is
the cornerstone of modern medical practice.
Note how S&S have ignored these important points raised in earlier
responses to their postings. Note how they prefer to make unsubstantiated
statements as argument, as if merely saying something often enough and loud
enough makes it true. Note how they misapply logic (as in the "stress"
studies) to further their argument. Note the similarity between their
behavior and other pseudo-scientists (take a peek in net.origins for a
sense of deja-vu.) If Stanions and Stoll truly cared to see their practices
accepted by the "establishment", they should be prepared to give them the
same scrutiny that the "establishment" gives theirs, and this means
publication in refereed journals, and an experimental design which leads to
unambiguous and reproducable results. Perhaps they'll claim that
"reputable" journals won't have anything to do with them. Perhaps, perhaps
not. But the wonderful thing about a well-designed scientific study is
that the results of the study would be hard to ignore, REGARDLESS of where
it appeared. Modern medicine hasn't ignored the results produced by S&S
and their clan precisely because they have no useful and reliable
results to report.
--
/Steve Dyer
{harvard,seismo}!bbnccv!bbncc5!sdyer
sdyer@bbncc5.ARPA