Doctors are not scientific. That is why they have a "practice"

The following is selective quotations from two different restricted
access articles which pontificate on why YOU science bigots are
irresponsibly endangering the safety of the public at large.

"A widely cited justification for this inclusion, sometimes offered in
a spirit of resignation, is that with the growing number of patients
using these therapies physicians must know about-and learn to educate
patients about-potential dangers, including toxicities and drug
interactions. A more CAM-friendly position adds that knowledge of the
patient's CAM use builds a stronger patient-physician relationship
by allowing the patient to speak about and ask questions about CAM and
by giving the provider a window into the patient's approach to health
and healing. A still more CAM-friendly position further adds that at
least some CAM therapies, though not adequately studied in
wellcontrolled trials, might plausibly improve health outcomes, and
patients should not be denied the option of these possibly helpful
therapies when dealing with health concerns in the here and now.
...
Evidence-based medicine uses the methodologies of clinical epidemiology
to identify and compare the health outcomes of various
interventions.22-24 A fundamental fact of clinical practice is that
we are applying data gained from populations to one person, without
knowing how these probabilistic data relate to this one unique
individual.25 If a therapy is the best choice for 7 out of 10 people,
how do we predict whether our patient is in that 70% or is in the 30%
of exceptions? This inevitable uncertainty is often called the N-of-1
problem, referring to the fact that we can never do clinical trials on
large numbers of patients identical to the one before us because that
patient is unique. Progressively larger studies, with statistical power
for deeper levels of subgroup analysis, can provide us with
progressively more textured information on how the study results apply
to patients resembling our single individual patient. But no matter how
large the study and how detailed the subgroup analysis, we will never
have data detailed enough to provide with absolute certainty the answer
for our one unique patient.

It is instructive to consider how this reality of evidence-based
medicine may affect patient and practitioner behavior, and the
patient-practitioner relationship, in various types of therapeutic
interventions. For some interventions, like choosing one toxic drug
over another or surgery over radiotherapy in cancer treatment, the
patient and the disease process may change substantially with the
passage of time or with each intervention, and there is no second
chance to go down the road not taken. In such cases, practitioners may
treat all patients with the 70% effective treatment, the bestdocumented
strategy for maximizing group outcome. At other times, however,
practitioners may want to rely on unproven, difficult-to-codify clues,
personal experience, or even feelings (their own or the patient's) to
choose the other therapy.26,27 It is likely that most patients want
their physicians not only to be well informed about evidence-based
medicine28 but also to have this individualizing option in clinical
decisionmaking and to know individual patients well enough to exercise
that option meaningfully.

Given this N-of-1 problem, it is likely that many patients seek
additional complementary therapies not only to feel more comfortable or
more generally in control29 but more specifically to take part in the
search for a package individualized to their unique needs. The fact
that many CAM hands-on therapies appear to be based on the immediate
perception and treatment of "findings" (e.g., muscle spasms, subluxed
joints, or blocked energy), present at that time in that patient,
probably increases the patient's sense of being treated as a unique
individual, a sense often missing in evidence-based medicine. If this
therapy conveys an underlying message with personal meaning that speaks
to that patient's sense of self, it may prove particularly
attractive.30-32 And if the therapy is understudied and considered
unproved, but appears safe and feels good, it may be attractive exactly
because it is not overtly associated with statistics, leaving freer
reign for the patient's imagination and sense of hope, both factors
that may themselves have positive physiological as well as
psychological effects.

A variety of therapeutic interventions in both conventional medicine
and CAM do allow for serial trials with an individual patient over
time, such as an internist trying out various antihypertensives or an
acupuncturist trying out related acupuncture points on a given patient.
There is a set of epidemiological rules for evaluating the observed
results in so-called "N-of-1 experiments."33 Despite problems of
proving causation, it is likely that these trials provide patients with
therapies more suitable to their needs, as well as a comforting sense
of being respected and cared for as unique individuals.

In cases in which they are feasible, therapeutic trials with individual
patients play an important role in helping clinicians deal with the
N-of-1 problem present in both conventional and CAM interventions. But
these sequential trials regard the patient as effectively being the
same person despite the passage of time. It is important to note that
some traditional medicine systems do not accept this approximation
under any circumstances and see themselves as always providing each
individual with the most effective treatment possible at each point in
time. Discussing this stance in an academic setting clearly provides an
opportunity to question how any practitioner can claim to know for sure
what is best in a unique case. It also provides an opportunity to note
and probe the therapeutic power of a conveyed sense of certainty and
respect for the ever-changing individual. What is the nature of this
appeal, which exists even when the patient's cognitive processes
dictate that such certainty is an extraordinary claim requiring
extraordinary evidence?

Because of the complexity of total patient care and the individual
needs of each unique patient, there is more to the practice of both
conventional medicine and CAM than the information emerging from
clinical trials. To address the N-of-1 problem, both conventional and
CAM practitioners operate outside the bounds of evidence-based
medicine, at least some of the time. A discussion of this reality and
how practitioners and patients cope with it, conducted by practitioners
of CAM, integrative medicine, and conventional medicine, would help
students deal with uncertainty as they care for each individual
patient."

Park CM. Diversity, the individual, and proof of efficacy:
complementary and alternative medicine in medical education. Am J
Public Health. 2002;92(10):1568 -1572.
http://www.ajph.org/cgi/content/full/92/10/1568

In addition ...

"The scientific model vastly improved medical practice by defining,
with increasing certainty, the pathophysiological basis of disease. One
result has been a progressively better understanding of human biology
and greatly enhanced ability to improve the outcome of disease. Another
result, unfortunately, has been an unexpected and unintended erosion of
the patient-physician relationship.
...
In all, the historical role of the physician as comprehensive caregiver
has markedly diminished. The combination of deteriorated
patient-physician relationships, the high reliance on expensive and
invasive technology, and the widespread perception that physicians
today are more focused on disease than on healing and wellness has
opened tremendous opportunities for providers of alternative
therapies.3 Nearly 50% of Americans are now using alternative medicine,
and the amount of money they spend on it exceeds the amount of money
spent on primary care medicine.
...
We must admit that our current delivery system as a whole is no longer
able to deliver the best of care to most people. In fact, it may
collapse totally because of its inability to provide what the public,
the profession, and the purchasers want and need.
...
Most Americans who consult alternative providers would probably jump at
the chance to consult a physician who is well trained in scientifically
based medicine and who is also open-minded and knowledgeable about the
body's innate mechanisms of healing, the role of lifestyle factors in
influencing health, and the appropriate uses of dietary supplements,
herbs, and other forms of treatment, from osteopathic manipulation to
Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine. In other words, they want competent
help in navigating the confusing maze of therapeutic options that are
available today, especially in those cases in which conventional
approaches are relatively ineffective or harmful. Unfortunately, that
option is not generally available: physicians with the desired
attitudes, knowledge, and training are few and far between. It is out
of great frustration that many patients enter the world of CAM and its
practices that run the gamut from the sensible and worthwhile to the
ridiculous and even dangerous."

Snyderman R, Weil AT. Integrative medicine: bringing medicine back to
its roots. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162:395-397. PMID: 11863470
--
john gohde
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/Natural-Health

That'd be a first, and, as usual, you failed to deliver.

No, I don't.  What I do think is that someone with no teeth is not
necessarily a great source of health information.

I'm not endangering anyone.  I'm not a doctor, or a nurse for that
matter.

Congratulations.  I'm sure your diet of soft foods is highly
gratifying to you.

So, tell me -- if your legions of devoted readers (har har har) follow
your health advice, will they follow you to the land of dentures as
well?  I visualize you as being like Calvin (of "Calvin and Hobbes"),
proclaiming yourself a super-genius and possibly wearing a self-made
"super genius" badge.

Go ahead, pontificate all you want about "science."  Your
understanding is so poor that every time you try to do it, legions of
people appear as if from nowhere to explain where you've gone wrong.

 -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
    These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
      "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
          were standing on my shoulders."  (Hal Abelson, MIT)