Head The Wall wrote: » The same can't be said for alternative medicine, some people believe it works some don't. So you can't come along and say 100% that it doesn't work without trying it.
Head The Wall wrote: » I am open to the idea that it may work for some people where you are straight out 100% adamant that it achieves absolutely nothing for no one. It's be easier to prove that God exists than what you are implying
This is the central risk of reflexology: that a believer, or even a naive victim, will turn to reflexology in the belief that it can treat an illness, at the expense of proper medical treatment. This delay of treatment can result in serious injury or death.
There are an endless number of crazy, unsupported claims out there, and I'm not going to go try them all without hesitation (considering that it would bankrupt me; reflexology certainly isn't free). If there was a hypothesis behind reflexology, even some remote suggestion as to how or why it might have a medicinal effect, then it's something I'd be glad to take a look at. That's the problem with almost all of these quack quasi-medical schemes: None of them offer any hypothesis or explanation of exactly what they do or how they do it. Almost none: A lot of them say that it involves some form of "energy". Well, sorry; made-up definitions for scientific sounding words like "energy" do not constitute a hypothesis, and certainly not a theory. Present me with a claim behind reflexology that can be measured and tested, and I'll commit right now to trying it.
JustMary wrote: » Just because we don't (yet) understand the actual mechanism by which it works doesn't mean there isn't a mechanism: good scientists know how little they really know, and are open to new knowledge and discoveries.
JustMary wrote: » If it was just placebo effect, I'd have expected the same from eccanacia (urg, bad spelling there!), but I don't have one.
JustMary wrote: » Re someone's question about quackery: I don't think that reflexology is any more morally repugnant than the fact that that doctors get paid even when they misdiagnose people or give advice that doesn't meet accepted standards. Eg, a friend of mine went to the GP with a pregnant woman who didn't have much English. The GP's instructions included drinking Guinness every day, to keep her iron levels up. Suffice to say that they found another GP - and that they still had to pay the initial incompetent one.
JustMary wrote: » It would be nice if we could apply strict science to all health services, but I'm afraid humans are just a bit too individual.
Head The Wall wrote: » So without ever trying something you say it doesn't work. That's narrow minded thinking
Head The Wall wrote: » I was on about the articles you have posted here or seem so versed on, what do these science articles say about someone that goes for reflexology and gains a benefit for it.
dapto1 wrote: » Em, I'm going on empirical evidence. Not a crystal ball. But I hear crystals are really good for your "energy" as well, I know a guy who can hook you up with one for the low low price of €79.99!
dapto1 wrote: » Where have I said that? Actually, I said: "Best of luck with it man. Whatever decision you come to, I hope it works out for you."
dapto1 wrote: » No, I wouldn't. Because it doesn't work.
dapto1 wrote: » "My" science articles? As much as I'd love to be published by some of those publications, I haven't been. And your statement shows a complete lack of understanding of the scientific method.
JustMary wrote: » Just because we don't (yet) understand the actual mechanism by which it works doesn't mean there isn't a mechanism: good scientists know how little they really know, and are open to new knowledge and discoveries. As with vitamin C and physiotherapy, it's quite possible that there are characteristics which mean they're effective for some people but not others. We just don't have tests to work out who they're effective for (yet). If it was just placebo effect, I'd have expected the same from eccanacia (urg, bad spelling there!), but I don't have one. Re someone's question about quackery: I don't think that reflexology is any more morally repugnant than the fact that that doctors get paid even when they misdiagnose people or give advice that doesn't meet accepted standards. Eg, a friend of mine went to the GP with a pregnant woman who didn't have much English. The GP's instructions included drinking Guinness every day, to keep her iron levels up. Suffice to say that they found another GP - and that they still had to pay the initial incompetent one. It would be nice if we could apply strict science to all health services, but I'm afraid humans are just a bit too individual.
dapto1 wrote: » Or even having an actual physically possible mechanism by which reflexology is supposed to work? There is none.
inisboffin wrote: » A good friend of mine had sinus trouble for years, she was on prescription meds and about to look into surgery. She's a bit of a cynic (by her own admission) but her cousin persuaded her to *try* a combo of acupuncture (mainly for stress relief as the condition was making her miserable) and a Neti Pot, She tried both and had a huge turnaround in just under a month. The neti pot is a little daunting at first, I have tried it, but found it gave a lot of relief when I had a sinus infection.
inisboffin wrote: » Isn't acupuncture (and how it works) pretty much accepted by 'Western medicine' these day? It has a lot of magical pathways going on!:p
Head The Wall wrote: » I'm sure even you can differentiate between pain and no pain
Head The Wall wrote: » That must be a great Crystal ball you have that can see into the future and tell you what does and doesn't work.
Head The Wall wrote: » You are just making yourself look really stupid here with your "My way or the highway" attitude.
Head The Wall wrote: » Unless your science articles conclusively that 100% of people gain no benefits from alternative therapies then they mean absolutely nothing
lighthouse wrote: » I appreciate all the comments. While I haven't my mind made up yet I am veering to trying reflexology. I have had a sinus problem for years. I am seeing a specialist in University College Hospital Galway. My medication and nasal sprays have been changed. Earlier in the year I was referred to another specialist in the hospital who was talking to me about having an operation on my nose which would involve a general anasthetic, with all the accompanying risks. I have experience of psychiatrists diagnosing me with an illness and telling me I would have to take medication for the rest of my life. I have been off psychiatric medication for 17 years and got to the root of my problems through psychotherapy and holotropic breathwork. So I am open to alternative forms of practice.
dapto1 wrote: » Even if that "success" is just a misinterpretation of regression to the mean? http://www.badscience.net/2008/11/whinge-moan/
Head The Wall wrote: » Look I'll dumb it down if someone tries it and it helps them thats what I call a success.
Head The Wall wrote: » You didn't answer what you would do if you were suffering yourself!!!
dapto1 wrote: » No, it's not the only way to judge it. How about properly conducted, controlled, blinded medical trials? That's how medical science works. It's not perfect, but it's better than hocus pocus. Or even having an actual physically possible mechanism by which reflexology is supposed to work? There is none. So it works because people do it? And people do it because it works? Circular reasoning, come on. Yes, of course that's exploitation too. That doesn't mean we should just take it though, does it?
Head The Wall wrote: » The only way you can judge these situations is if you yourself have had a long term pain/injury. If you were in constant pain are you telling me you wouldn't do whatever you could to find a resolution to it, I would and I'm a cynic
Head The Wall wrote: » You say time and time again reflexology has been shown not to work. Well it either does something for people (relieves pain) or they just like going and paying for it (pampering)
Head The Wall wrote: » What about the govt charging us through the nose for services, thats exploitation too. It happens
Head The Wall wrote: » You probably feel the same way about fortune tellers, drinks companies etc People make their own choices to go to these people, drink, smoke etc. You don't seem to be aware of the concept of people making their own choices.
Head The Wall wrote: » If someone decides to go to a quack and no one else, that's not the quacks fault. It's the person thats stupid and thats their own personal responsibility and they will have to live with the consequences of their decision.
Head The Wall wrote: » What works for one person may not work for the next be it western or alternative medicine. You owe it to yourself if you have something wrong to try whatever you want until you find out what works for you
dapto1 wrote: » Yes, I believe physiotherapy works. I don't really understand what point the rest of the paragraph is trying to make... Placebo effect, possibly? Yes, but don't you find it morally repugnant that people are exploiting others' suffering and desperation with quackery? Here's an idea: Find out the price of a few sessions with a reflexologist. Then, give that money to a charity you feel strongly about. There's no harm in that, either. In fact, it will do some good. And you will feel better as well.
JustMary wrote: » Do you believe that physiotherapy works? I had a GP back home who didn't believe in it:- getting a referral from him to a (equivalent of chartered) physio was a bit of a mission. Does that mean he wasn't a doctor (and a very helpful one in certain ways, including being open to see patient at 8am) - not a bit.
JustMary wrote: » IMHO It's a bit like vitamin C: I've read the evidence synthesis that came to the conclusion that Vit C doesn't protect against colds or help recover from them faster. I believe this evidence - on a population basis. But for myself, I believe that taking large doses of Vit C in the first few days of a cold massively speeds my recovery. I don't know why, and I don't know why it doesn't work for (all) other people. I don't know what the biological mechanism it uses is. But I'm convinced that it works for me.
JustMary wrote: » In the same way, given that it does no harm, I see no reason why the OP shouldn't try reflexology. Yes it can be dangerous if someone sticks to it and avoids other diagnostic professionals. But there's nothing in reflexology that says "don't go to the doctor".
dapto1 wrote: » No, it's in a doctor's best interest to treat the patient. If reflexology worked, doctors would do it.
