Do universities ignore science? Evidence based medicine is the benchmark for medical training at Sydney & Newcastle Universities; students are required to argue positions based on evidence. Is the author suggesting students at such places suddenly accept alternative medicine because a lecturer says so? The courses at those institutions do not work that way.

Is science based medicine without blemish? Assessment of new chemical compounds for the treatment of diseases do not cross test to a range of existing compounds to assess relative efficacy. It is a business designed to maximise profit first and foremost. If science is desired then apply science fully; don’t allow science to enable ever greening chemicals into different mixes to improve profits.

Universities are profit centres; they are no longer altruistic institutions seeking the public good. The move to training full fee paying foreign students is a sign of Universities turning into businesses concerned with bottom line performance first and foremost. There is an inherent drive to “get bums on seats” as there are dollars attached to those bums. At photovoltaic courses the common game is pick the Australian.

Despite that drive to filling seats teaching neither forms a criteria for appointment or promotion at places such as CSU, recent appointments in their Business School have made clear the only criteria that matters is publications, not teaching.

Within the mix of charlatan and saint teaching that takes evidence as being mandatory and students as the primary focus of a University has to re-emerge. 85%+ of budgets comes from teaching.

Universities should have budgets cut till they prove teaching expertise is weighted as being as significant as the proportion of funding coming from teaching with that teaching being required to be based on evidence not ideology. Great teaching changes the lives of many students over life times, few publications are more than an anecdote 'on the footpath of history'.

Teach alternative medicine, but require the same discipline as Sydney and Newcastle require of their students – evidence. Lecturers are there to serve, not be self indulgent.

Well said Professor!
Once you have cleaned out the medical training duck pond you might like to turn your attention to a few other putrid ponds of 'academic endeavour'. Teacher Education and Sociology wouldn't be a bad place to start and then there are the geese in the 'Climatology' departments.
But beware, the postmodernists will say any opinion is a good opinion, if the right people hold it, and you only need the enlightenment if you want to see where you are going.

Unis should NOT be offering these courses. They have consistently failed to provide verifiable proof that their course offer ANY help to patients. Indeed, there are numerable clases where they have caused great physical damage.

Unis run these courses to make money. They are market opportunists. I can't blame them for that but it does no one any good mixing it up and selling it from the back of a wagon.

John,it must be pointed out that some of the academic disciplines that are taken/assumed to be scientifically sound are anything but. Take psychological science,for eg. Academic Psychology is a pseudoscience, on the basis that it conveniently sidesteps dealing with the central issue to do with the mind- the nature of consciousness. Psychology merely confines itself to the physical mechanisms, and their behavioural implications, of the brain yet does not directly deal with the nature of the psychological phenomenon these processes give rise to. The so-called "objective" science practiced by experimental psychologists is a hoax on the basis that the theoretical explanations they offer up, in their attempts to account for the data they observe, are riddled with cultural artifacts and metaphors(mostly of a western kind). For eg, in short term memory studies of serial (word) recall experiments the most commonly accepted explanation for the observation that people tend to recall, on average, 7 words is the "phonological loop" theory. That a human being's short term memory is akin to the length of ribbon on a tape cassette. Huh? This is just as speculatively pseudoscientific as Freud's psychic determinism.

John, nobody doubts the fact homeopathy and acupuncture are in their elementary stages of credibility within the current paradigm of scientific discourse, but what you should be focusing on more is the subtle yet major aspects of pseudoscience operating within the so-called psychological and behavioural sciences. The fundamental assumptions that underpin empirical observations in these fields are extremely underdetermined and therefore warrant more critical investigation. But of course, the head body - APA (australian psychological association) would not be very happy about this at all now would they?

Time you read (or re-read) the Duhem-Quine thesis, John, then you may realise that all scientific enterprises, medicine included, contain significant amounts of pseudoscience. Medicine is, after all, merely a thin veneer over the terror of uncertainty and that all science can ever be is a process not a collection of a-historical facts. Science likes to think that it produces certainties but the best it can and does deliver, epistemologically, is approximations and metaphors.

Groan - how boringly predictable.
I am a "scientist", a true believer in the doctrine/religion of scientism, therefore what I say is therefore true, and no correspondence will be entered in to.

Meanwhile why not Google: Is modern medicine scientific.

And why not check out the work of Doctor Rudoplh Ballentine MD via his Radical Healing book. Ballentine actually bothered to do his homework like a TRUE scientist would. And found out that "alternative" systems of healing do actually work.

And the work of Doctor Andrew Weil MD.

Vibrational Medicine by Richard Gerber

Planet Medicine by Richard Grossinger and his publishing company North Atlantic Books which publishes some far-out stuff, ALL of which is thoroughly researched and based on empirical evidence - what they do actually works.

The major difference is that all of the various North Atlantic authors (plus Ballentine/Gerber etc) operate from radically different EPISTEMOLOGIES, or sets of presumptions about what is real and possible.

My wife & I have a standing joke. She says she has an appointment, & I ask if it is mumbo jumbo. About half the time she says yes. They even have a supper group that discuss this stuff.

I have noticed some of it really does work. The best is her hairdresser, she always comes home happy from her, although sometimes, I don't know why from the hair set.

Then there's the lady who does her nails. She is a real mood lifter, with results that can last days. I don't know much about the rest of it, not discussing these things is a recipe for harmony I have found.

The fact that she had to give up mumbo jumbo, & have an operation on her eye, does not seem to have weakened her faith.

Still John you really must admit most people get over the complaint that sent them to a doctor, quack or otherwise. I believe the treatment most of them use is natures ability to heal us of most ailments. How often have you heard a doctor say, "take this, & if you're not better in a fortnight, come back & see us".

Like my mate says, the doctor can usually cure you in 14 days, otherwise nature will take a fortnight.

Most doctors don't ask you to make an appointment in the next few days. In my own experience, all chiropractors ask you to make another appointment. I suspect it helps to keep the money rolling in.

Its going to be all black and white on this thread. Perhaps its
time that universities got involved in separating science from
voodoo. Because its not all just black or white.

Where I live a great many people have lower back problems. Our
conventional doctors frankly can't help them. The good chiropracters
are very busy, because they can in fact make a difference.

So we need universities to separate the science from voodoo within
chiropractic.

Its a bit the same with asthma. All that doctors can do is prescribe
more puffer packs and steroids. Yet numerous people have stopped
having asthma problems, when they tried the Buteyko method, closed
their mouths and learned to breathe through their nose.

So it seems to me that universities could indeed play a role in
separating fact from fiction. Just look what happened, when
somebody did some proper research on the cause of stomach ulcers. For years
doctors told us that it was stress, they were clearly wrong.

Modern drugs and surgery medicine are superb at crisis intervention of all kinds, patching people up after accidents, and more often than not diagnosis of symptoms and pathological conditions. Other than that it is largely a failure in that it rarely if ever cures people of their dis-ease. It doesn't know how. Doesnt even have a comprehensive model of how the healing process might work, or a holistic concept of what optimum health might look like. A model which takes the subtle influence of mind, emotions, and psyche into account. Including quite possibly, each persons astrological chart, and numerological patterning too.

Yes it quite often relieves people of their painful and bothersome symptoms, but it never restores people to a sense of balanced well-being.

In most and even all cases, a simple and even radical change of diet can do much to both relieve people of both their acute and chronic dis-ease symptoms. And then if applied consistently and diligently, enable the body to use its own intrinsic biological wisdom to heal itself. The corollary being that most people basically eat their way to a dis-eased condition, and that unless people change their diet no fundamental healing is possible.

"It is disturbing to see federal tax dollars spent on supporting non-science (nonsense) on our campuses and subsidising the rebate private health insurers provide for pseudoscience."

Indeed. It is disturbing that our tax-money goes into creating a bias in support of ANY teaching, be it scientific or otherwise.

If non-science is so bad, then let the students vote with their feet and let the patients vote with their wallet. Lend students a fixed sum for their studies; Give the afflicted a fixed sum to cure themselves, then let them shop around for what they believe is appropriate for them.

(and as for private-health-insurance, neither subsidize it, nor make it compulsory via the medicare-surcharge: allow people to insure themselves or to choose a larger self-participation excess)

The medical profession is based on an irrational philosophy. Though the facts are mostly scientific, the goals are ideologically based (notwithstanding the greed factor) on materialist/atheist/humanist grounds.

At the moment, the government is in collusion with the AMA mafia, legislating according to their every whim to give them powers similar to any of the middle-ages' old guilds.

Most benefits of pseudo-science are not proven - but one is: it keeps people away from medical doctors!

Yabby, John allows that chiropractic has benefits for back problems - it's the rest of it that isn't scientific. I've also heard him on radio discussing acupuncture, and it appears breaking the skin does produce physical benefits - but the meridians are unscientific.

So whether you agree with him or not, it's a more nuanced view than nothing outside of conventional medicine is of any benefit.

The Doctor doth protest too much methinks ... Medicine is hardly a precise science - which is why people die or become very ill from misdiagnosis, adverse reaction to medications and infection linked to medical procedures.

At the same time many many more are cured or relieved. Simple fact is humans are a complicated organism with immense diversity throughout the species. If it were not so, there would be just one highly effective efficient "HEALING SCIENCE".

I used to believe chiropractic was witch doctor stuff, that was my training. Then suffering a 'bad back' that wasn't responding to the first line anti-inflammatories, at a colleagues urging I visited her Chiro - in trepidation, stories of 'paralysis and irrepairable damage' dancing in my head. I entered his practice incapacitated and in serious pain. I left walking straight with pain reduced at least 75%. The effect was no placebo. Since then I have been an enthusiastic supporter of chiropractic treatment and seen it help many people - some of whom I've referred. Research data would indicate that most people obtain a benefit. Of those that don't, incidence of further harm is very low. There are aspects of the 'theory' that I find somewhat incredulous but I can also point to a number of modern medical practices for which there is little benefit obtained but the financial outcomes for the practitioners are immense ... Continued next post

One that springs immediately to mind ultrasound scans in obstetrics. An important tool but overused and abused. Research conducted by the WHO compared results in 11 group trials of women - some of whom recieved ultrasound if 'indicated' - ie suspected multiple, abnormality or complication while others recieved 'routine' ultrasounds throughout. The conclusion - scientifically based - was "Routine scans do not seem to be associated with reductions in adverse outcomes for babies or in health service use by mothers and babies."

Yet Australian mothers can expect at least 3 'routine', often 5 - 8 if 'indicated'. The cost to Medicare - taxpayers, is around $70 a pop with an additional $60 - $80 gap payment if the mother is attending a private practice. The annual birth rate is now around 300,000 - at rate of 3 scans per pregnancy that is a cost to Medicare of 63 million. Probably at least half that is wasted money. Now factor in the gap payments - and the private practitioner is very enthusiastic in recommending scans, so you're likely to get an extra 1,2,3 or more and that's conservatively an extra $250 per patient per pregnancy. Approx 30% of mothers recieve private obstetric care - about 100,000 annually. That's another 25 million coming directly from the parent/s going directly to the obstetric practice. For what demonstrated scientifically proven health advantage? Little to none!

Smells like .... QUACKERY??

This is but one example of 'psuedo-science' waste and downright profiteering in the 'Conventional Medicine' field.

Yes - Charlatans, Conmen and their ilk should be scrutinised and where possible, consumers protected from unscrupulous behaviour. This includes elements of modern medicine. At the same time people have a right to choose and for some - a minority, that choice will be non-mainstream. So be it. For some it will provide the answer, most others will move on if the treatment proves ineffective.

Not everything can be explained by science BTW. I've learned that the more you know, the more you realise how much you don't know - or ever will.

*John allows that chiropractic has benefits for back problems - it's the rest of it that isn't scientific.*

Graham, yes, I got that notion from reading the article. But somewhere, somebody, needs to separate the science from the voodoo.
Why not universities?

In my experience, some chiropracters indeed want to use science as
the basis for what they do. Others less so.

So an accredited course in chiropractic, run with scrutiny by
a university, could actually be a positive outcome.

When I go to a chiro, I don't accept that I should keep returning,
as many of them suggest. That does not mean that there are not
times, when I've misused my back at work, where a chiro cannot help,
unlike doctors, who can't. So we need some clarity. Why not
achieve it through universities?

There are conditions marginalised by conventional medicine but treated by 'fringe' doctors, such as under-methylation, pyroluria etc. Treatment repeatedly restores sanity and health. These are complex conditions and the range of treatment responses may reflect the complexity of the physiological/genetic systems involved but robust statistics are available including evidence of health care cost savings. My family pays a few $1000s a year to be restored to sanity, free of heavy metal accumulation and relatively normal in mood, simply through vitamin and mineral supplements prescribed by a trained doctor. The PBS ignores the diagnosis and treatment needs. Conventional treatments, including hospitalisation, offer no sustainable recovery path e.g. chelation would be a continuous need if accumulation of heavy metals wasn't prevented. More humility by the mainstream medical profession and a willingness to accept strong, replicated anecdotal evidence as a starting point for serious investigation would be welcome.

What do you call alternative medicine that works?

Medicine.

Anyone foolish enough to consider flushing their money down the sinkhole of 'CAM' would do well to read at least either Singh & Ernst's 'Trick or Treatment?' or Dr. Ben Goldacre's 'Bad Science'.

Singh and Ernst conduct a review of all the scientific literature regarding CAM (quite a lot of it) and deliver a blunt assessment of what works (almost none of it).

Ben Goldacre should have some appeal to the CAM crowd, in that he is also no fan of the alt-med loons' favourite bogeyman, the wicked 'Big Pharma'. But Goldacre *is* a fan of evidence. He loves the stuff. As a consequence, he has even less time for CAM.

As a retired chiropractor I have to agree with much of this article. I practiced musculo skeletal manipulation for 25 yrs. I had a full practice. I had a working relationship with orthopedic surgeons in my area. Before that I was a radiographer. I deplore the way ammerican chiropractors have taken over in universities and spread their ideas of "inate intelligence". However I also regret the hypocrisy some of the medical people. Courses have been run for medical practitioners in manipulation. These courses lasted just a few days and then they have a certificate. My own gp has one on his wall and I have a close friend who is a GP and he has done the course. Frankly manipulative therapy cannot be taught in a course lasting a few days. Its ridiculous. Also many medical doctors use acupuncture. As for evidence based medicine, come on, give me a break. Much of medicine is wishful thinking. As for scientific evaluation, well that costs money. Yes it should be carried out. In short I believe some of the outrgaeous claims should be challenged but lets be fair and include medical practice too. By the way you should shine the light on psychology, now that would give you something to talk about.

While some complimentary practices such as chiropractors have obvious benefits, most do not, and have no science in them whatsoever.

However, this also applies to religion, and the arts.

"However, this also applies to religion, and the arts."

Good point SM. Some though do hold to a higher standard http://www.victorynetwork.org/DD.html - nothing but the highest standards there by the looks of it.

The area that really sticks out in terms of quackery is Gender Studies. For the most part it's straight out advocacy starting from some core assumptions that are never tested.

R0bert

John, this article is sad on two counts, firstly you are spot on and secondly it is too late to undo, the damage is done.

The socialization approach to the philosophy and history of science has become distressingly familiar.

The socialization advocates promote the abandoning of the idea of science as a separate domain of activity and enquiry, they promote that science must be understood not as a means of acquiring objective general truths about the world but simply as another for of social behavior! In effect that science is no different to any other form of knowledge. This appears to be a form of reflective angst by trying to establish that it is science that is elitist and privileged and not the humanities academics.

They further postulate that scientific laws are the product of “consensus” and must be understood in terms of the prejudices, social pressures and power relations that result in the emergence of consensus and not in terms of advances in understanding, in logical consistency or correspondence with external reality. (now where have we heard this before?)

These are the partisan and issues based activities emanating from academia in relation to their influence upon the corruption of the curriculum in both university and high school education. It also relates to academia’s partial and very public position on scientific issues.

I agree with the author absolutely - universities are supposed to be the ultimate bastions of truth, responsibility and excellence. There should be no place in such institutions for pseudoscience, quackery or untruth. Questionning, investigation, hypothesis, testing of boundaries - yes - but always within the bounds of sound intellectual responsibility.

There is obviously an important role for chiropractors, as also for physiologists, radiologists, nurses, dietitions, sociologists, occupational therapists and speech therapists, etc, and for accupuncturists, herbalists and psychologists. It must be up to responsible educational foundations to determine the appropriate level of training, the appropriate place (educational institution) for such training, and required oversight of standards, practices, licensing, regulation and recognition of all of these, and so many other, professions.

Some training will be held responsibly to be the role of universities; other training a role for TAFE or CofAE; and this is for relevant professional educators to determine.

Whilst it is appropriate for there to be responsible training, licensing and regulatory oversight of potentially 'pseudoscience' 'disciplines', it is necessary to separate such credibly legitimate fields as homeopathy and herbal medicine from such questionnable 'treatments' as aromatherapy and iridology - which might be regarded as more akin to palm-reading and astrology rather than any form of science, and potentially may have no greater (or even less) benefit than a facial, hair-styling, manicure, massage, sauna or some light exercise. (Or a cupo'tea, a Bex and a good lie down.)

Quackery should be put in its place, but it can not be left to run riot unchecked - for part of the human condition is an enduring 'faith' or 'hope' in/for all manner of unlikely panaceas for real and imaginary conditions, including for sheer boredom and loneliness.

People sometimes just need to be protected from themselves.

Saltpetre:"universities are supposed to be the ultimate bastions of truth, responsibility and excellence. There should be no place in such institutions for pseudoscience, quackery or untruth. Questionning, investigation, hypothesis, testing of boundaries - yes - but always within the bounds of sound intellectual responsibility."

I agree, but if you follow the money, you'll see the influence of the "BigPharma" on doctors and scientists alike, who are scared to lose their money machine.

BTW.What is the average age of a doctor being sent to heaven?
and to give you further lessons from our world university, research the fact that Naturopaths and related professions live longer.

As far as science is concerned, the results of research are only right until proven wrong by the next bright spark, and should never made into a law.

First do NO harm. Tell that to the millions of people who died from the so called cancer research, by literally poisoning all cells, what a farce! Funding this research only means more suffering.

Again, follow the money! Taking a silver solution,apple cider vinegar,baking soda,Vitamins and cleaning up the internal environment does a lot better for healing dis eases.

I rest my (healthy) case!

eftfnc,

With all due respects, no one has ever claimed that medicine is an exact science, largely due the differences in human chemistry, however, great strides have been made, and the poison of Chemotherapy saves millions.

The same cannot be said for "complementary medicine", with many recorded cases of people dying because they trusted serious health problems to quacks.

I believe that complementary "medicine" has its place in society, as does religion, however, it should not be confused with real medicine.

Saltpetre "it is necessary to separate such credibly legitimate fields as homoeopathy".

Get real. This would have to be one of the greatest quackeries ever conceived by man.

Topomountain. I have to agree with you. There does seem to be almost an air of mysticism about some of their practitioners although the ones who have treated me all seem to be very effective manipulators.

Shadow Minister

'Real medicine' doesn't exist. There is conventional or Western medicine that has benefits and shortfalls. There is alternative or complimentary medicine with advantages and disadvantages.

There is also freedom of choice. People choosing ANY form of therapy do so at own risk and must take the greater part of responsibility for the outcome - short of incompetence/negligence/misrepresentation by the Practitioner, regardless of the type of treatment.

In best scenarios there's clear cut diagnosis. Western medicine is way out front here. After that it's a case of weighing up options and evidence for what you consider the best outcome.

In many cases best and ONLY outcome is NOT going to be cure. It will be relief of symptoms, pain control, slowing disease progress and buying time, hopefully quality time.

Chemotherapy is far less of a saviour than you claim. It's an effective agent against many forms of cancer, while producing side effects ranging from mildly unpleasant to occasionally fatal. Mostly though, there is net benefit. However since chemo is often used in late stage or palliative treatment a great many people will not be saved but rather succumb to the disease.

Most 'seriously ill' people who turn to alternative medicine have been given little or no hope by conventional practitioners. I find stories of claims made by some 'healers' to be able to cure the incurable disturbing but what has the patient got to lose - other than their savings? Maybe a "No Win, No Pay" law needs to apply to these folks. There is a small minority who completely reject conventional medicine, occasionally to their detriment. Once again - choice and responsibility. Sometimes the outcome is good - better than western medicine could achieve.

Either which way both fields of medicine have their place. I have a conventional medicine background but life experience, an open mind, eyes and ears has taught me much more. I don't mind saying there are scenarios where I would think seriously about pursuing the 'alternative' course. Next post I tell a story of the death of 2 good friends ..... cont.

Two good friends died of cancer in past 6 years. One, male, 50 diagnosed with invasive lung cancer. Surgeons wouldn't operate as it had infiltrated pericardium and aorta. Palliative treatment was offered with life expectancy 6 - 12 months. Then he found a specialist willing to have a go.

Survived surgery to remove the diseased lung then Chemo and radium. Convalescence was very painful and protracted, Overall for the next 20 months he functioned at 20-40% capacity. The cancer reappeared in his brain and he underwent another surgery and further radium which left him an invalid. Cancer spread to the other lung and he died 7 months after that second surgery.

Friend #2, female, 54, stage 4 breast cancer. Offered chemo as palliative option. Life expectancy without treatment 3-6 months, with Chemo 12-18. After researching her options she decided on 'alternative", embarking on a strict organic vegetarian diet and 'snake oil' medicines under some old German Naturopath. At 6 months she looked and felt very good. Scans showed marked decrease in some tumours and several small ones were undetectable. Susan continued her regime and over another 18 months there was further regression of the cancer. During this time, she felt well and functioned 100%, including spending 4 months travelling overseas. Around this 2 yr mark the cancer returned quite aggressively. She considered chemo but decided side effects were not worth any extra time it might buy. At this stage she still felt well. Further 'natural' potions failed to halt progress and she began to deteriorate, eventually passing away after a relatively short period of major debilitation - less than 3 weeks.

Comparing quantity and quality of life given that both had recieved almost identical prognosis, I ask myself what course I would choose in a similar situation. Both survived similar lengths of time, Susan a couple of months longer, but quality compared with Charles was chalk and cheese. He spent 2 years 3 months living less than half a life. She spent her last 2 years 5 months living large.

No right or wrong answers!

John, Have you heard of the Chester Wilks trial? The AMA had violated Section 1 of the Sherman Act, and had engaged in an unlawful conspiracy in restraint of trade "to contain and eliminate the chiropractic profession." (Wilk v. American Medical Ass'n, 671 F. Supp. 1465, N.D. Ill. 1987). The judge found the "AMA had entered into a long history of illegal behavior" issuing a permanent injunction against the AMA under Section 16 of the Clayton Act to prevent such future behavior.

How about we adopt Richard Dawkins philosophy that "there is no alternative medicine, there is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."Perhaps we can set about to find out why it works, rather than denying it does without investigation. I acknowledge that you & your colleagues see patients that have had poor care from pursuing "alternative" care; however we see the disatisfied end products of the medical system which offers no help or worse, causes iatrogenic illness and death by the thousands each year.

If you want a level playing field, it must be level for all modalities. It seems all other practices must be held up to biomedical paradigm, which therein lies the problem…who made this the right and only way to practice healthcare; the exclusive basis for knowledge and practice? How did therapies that are the most widely used in the world such as botanical medicine (herbs) and acupuncture that has been available for thousands of years become the “alternative”. The playing field for research is not even in terms of dollars spent, however there are practices that work and have evidence and those that work and don’t yet have evidence, but let us not discard those in the latter category. Let us be sure too that a restriction of trade mentality is not creeping in.

Yes we have different paradigms, both have significant shortfalls and strengths - but can we get the focus off bashing each others professions and instead put the energy effort and money into helping people with their health, after all that is why we all do what we do

It is a good thing that our mechanics are better at their job than are our doctors, otherwise most of us would be walking everywhere. Granted mechanics can pull more bits out of their "patient" & still have it work when put back together, but they don't have the huge array of expensive machines to look inside their patient, while it is still working, if badly, that doctors have

I have not had a single doctor do anything useful for my back. They have ordered scans, X rays & such, but offered no help but pain relief.

On the other hand I have had only one chiropractor do anything good for it either, but for me he was like a miracle worker. So that's chiropractor one, doctors nil.

But then the cardiologists have treated me for a number of heart attacks so well, that, apart from the now minor operation of opening up a near blocked with a stent, they had me fixed in minutes.

Doctors one Chiropractors one.

So I guess it boils down to choosing the right ailment, one that the profession actually know something about.

I am a business person...no leaning to or hobbyhorse about western or alternative medicine. A few degrees and very good at research.
The FSM has taken me and colleagues with no interest in this area, in one step to totally opposing the FSM ! The arrogance that this group of academic medics show in inferring they own truth and knowledge in this knowledge economy is astounding. Who do they think they are? We pay for your salaries, departments, conferences and all the trappings out of our taxes-and you think you can tell Universities what is true knowledge and what isn't. What unbelievable arrogance. Like a new Inquisition?
Even a cursory search of papers into problems with medical research and western medicine and evidence based medicine show you radically need to get your own house in order. You also need to accept that science research is not just your interpretation of it- medical research mainly uses pseudo scientific research compared to real science disciplines ! It ignore heaps of variables related to life. There are also many other paradigms of researching evidence.
This group is a danger to the freedom of Universities to choose what they teach.Imagine one branch of Psych or Physics saying another branch cannot be taught in a University....or maybe you want to ban next Theology or Islamic Studies..or even aboriginal studies.... because of lack of (your type of) evidence... And don't say you are protecting consumers-what a laugh....consumers are already voting with their feet in terms of choices about Medicine and health. The consumer fundamentally has lost trust in many areas of Western medicine...they see it as a "sell out" in medical research to the careers of academics on one hand and BigPharm on the other. Thats your problem. But please don't claim you are scientists doing this, because we don't want science to be tarnished with your approach.

Dear John,
So it must be about time for mental health and depression to now be classed the same as alternative or complementary medicine then? Since scientific research show less side-effects and better treatment outcomes from a well known magnesium supplement. When some of the usual SSRI tablets are proven to increase suicide risks and according to science they often fail to work for many patients at all.
How is this based on science? Or is this the real nonsense?
Wasting money on unproven science & failed treatments does need to stop, but a patient should have the right to choose whatever treatment they decide on based on the facts both positive and negative I think it is called informed consent?

wow John, bad week for Western Medical Academics.....after years of a few Doctors being ridiculed for opposing Statins...suddenly the research is out that Statins do more harm than good. And the medical academics/researchers are the ones who chiefly have been the defenders. And hip replacements....carcinogenic; and it goes on and on.....once you start looking at the problems in academic medical research/usage its an eyeopener !
It makes the FSM move look like a (poor) attempt to deflect attention away from the problems in academic medicine/research by blaming others!
I suspect that unless you all back off, then you're going to get a community back lash against academic medics in general. The fact that you can get me and a group of similar influential totally non medic/alternative medic people (with absolutely no vested interest) so annoyed at the arrogance being shown by the FSM< and gets us looking more closely at the problems in academic medicine is a sign that its time you all cleaned up your own act. The many excellent surgeons, Doctors and Nurses who work with great commitment, could be tarnished by such an arrogant disconnected academic view of the world and your beliefs that you all control what is correct knowledge and what is not.
Instead of the VC's listening to your suggestions they should send you all packing with the message "clean up your own house"...or perhaps "physician heal yourself" one could say.

JP,

"suddenly the research is out that Statins do more harm than good"

What a load of rubbish.

Because the human physiology is so varied, everyone reacts slightly differently to drugs or vaccines, and taking any treatment has some inherent risk. For those with hypertension the side effects of not taking statins is most often heart disease and death.

This crusade against a life saving drug is similar to the morons from the anti vaccination mob.

Hi Shadow Minister.
Unfortunately I and many of my friends (all with many degrees and doctorates) must be in your opinion morons. The lady down the road (who has a Doctorate in a non medical but scientific subject) whose child was impacted by a vaccination and had a fit and other symptoms must be a moron according to you. So must many others. We (consumers) look at evidence from large scale research; we look at evidence from a range of other perspectives. We draw some conclusions and we leave some things on hold.
The consumer does the same. They hear the blind faith of the academic medico/pharm link in drugs, whether its chemo, all vaccinations (remember some recent problems), hips, statins and so on.
Its a pity that your last post was so. I had enjoyed the balance in your posts.
The number of people talking about this is growing. 1 in 150 taking statins who actually need them....thats the message out there
They compare now this blind faith with evidence they hear, see, collect, and many of us come to the conclusion that a lot of medicine is not as evidence based as it makes out it is. The overworked GP or Nurse can hardly have more time than to reply on the pharm rep for information; many of them balance this with evidence from individuals they treat or colleagues (dare I say sometimes even CAM colleagues)
Its not media hype-the coverage represents a huge consumer concern over what is happening to their health. And academic medicos will be the losers if they go down the path of FSM of throwing the blame at others.
FSM need to back off, apologise for their arrogance. If they don't then I suspect they will start to galvanise a backlash against them. And its not going to be a CAM backlash-its going to be much bigger and broader than that.
Then both Western Medicine practitioners and academic medicos and CAM need to find ways to work together to find the benefits of both approaches, and gradually to build better evidence.

JP,

"Unfortunately I and many of my friends (all with many degrees and doctorates) must be in your opinion morons." - You said it.

Compared to the approximately 2000 people that die p.a. in Australia from flu, the few people that get an adverse reaction compared to the hundreds of lives saved is not rational. It is like campaigning against seat belts because they chafe.

I have yet to see you post a link to support your far fetched claims.

interesting. Well it just says it all.
Bowing out now of the discussion- but each time FSM takes another arrogant step like this, they should expect the backlash to recruit a far wider section of the professional, political and general public....