Anecdotal evidence against anecdotal evidence

[bindeweede]

I stumbled across this interesting article - it seems to offer another way of looking at how CAM can appear to be effective.

http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/06/25/...otal-evidence/

[Dubious Dick]

What an excellent find Bindeweed.

My heart goes out to Tammy who wrote it, and my admiration for her courage in resisting the lure of all those who always seem to claim that they are 'compassionate' while offering their snake oil.

I bet Mr. Mannion would have tried to 'help' Tammys daughter given half a chance, for a small fee for his time only of course!

[Trinoc]

Can I put in a plea for the much maligned "snake oil"?

Snake oil was (possibly still is) a perfectly valid Chinese medicine, at least by the standards of its day, that was sold in places like the USA as an anti-inflammatory. It was the really bogus medicine salesmen who told people not to buy this "useless snake oil" from the Chinese herbalists, and buy their own rubbish instead.

By using "snake oil" in a derogatory sense, we are actually echoing the false claims of the quacks of the time.

[Dubious Dick]

T. I saw that on QI too. What hall we call it instead?

[Trinoc]

T. I saw that on QI too. What hall we call it instead?

I can't think of anything as catchy as "snake oil" - it's almost too good to abandon even though it's wrong. We could try "patent medicines" or "nostrums", but they don't roll off the tongue so well.

[JJM]

Can I put in a plea for the much maligned "snake oil"?
{snip}

Sure, provide the reliable, clinical evidence.

[Trinoc]

Sure, provide the reliable, clinical evidence.

I was talking about the traditional use of snake oil ... you know, the wild west and all that. That is the context in which the phrase was coined, dishonestly, as a generic label for bad medicine (by the people who really were selling bad medicine). We can't apply modern standards of clinical practice retrospectively to the past!

[JJM]

I was talking about the traditional use of snake oil ... you know, the wild west and all that. That is the context in which the phrase was coined, dishonestly, as a generic label for bad medicine (by the people who really were selling bad medicine). {snip}

Maybe I am confused, you wrote "By using "snake oil" in a derogatory sense, we are actually echoing the false claims of the quacks of the time." It suggests to me that claims (by the people who really were selling bad medicine) that (traditional, Chinese) snake oil is ineffective, are false.

I know that is convoluted. In short, are you suggesting that traditional Chinese claims are true? If so, where is the reliable, clinical evidence?

[JJM]

{snip} We can't apply modern standards of clinical practice retrospectively to the past!

Yes, we can. Scalding, trephaning, calomel, leeches, powdered mummy and prayer have no therapeutic value. That was as true centuries ago as it is today.

[Pebble]

I am unable to find any evidence that snake oil is an effective anti-inflammatory treatment.

[Trinoc]

I am unable to find any evidence that snake oil is an effective anti-inflammatory treatment.

It contains EPA, which appears to be accepted by the NIH as having anti-inflammatory properties.

[bindeweede]

I am unable to find any evidence that snake oil is an effective anti-inflammatory treatment.

Dear Pebble,

I hope you will take this in the not-serious way it is intended.

I don't know if snake oil is any good for arthritis, but peanut oil is. Well, Gary Mannion said it was, as long as you do not have an allergy, of course, so it must be true.()

There are about 150 different types of arthritis - well, according to this - and another "famous" psychic, Edgar Cayce, said peanut oil was a good preventative measure.

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/seventhmo...reatment1.html

[JJM]

It contains EPA, which appears to be accepted by the NIH as having anti-inflammatory properties.

The NIH has become a poor source of info. I did not see any reference to snake oil there, as you admit. What do you claim as benefits from snake oil and where is the reliable, clinical data for the traditional use? For example, willow bark was originally thought to be useful for malaria. It has medicinal properties; but, malaria isn't among them.

[polomint38]

Have you ever seen a snake with arthritis?

Or a peanut for that matter.

[Trinoc]

The NIH has become a poor source of info.

Because it says things you disagree with, perhaps?

I did not see any reference to snake oil there, as you admit. What do you claim as benefits from snake oil and where is the reliable, clinical data for the traditional use? For example, willow bark was originally thought to be useful for malaria. It has medicinal properties; but, malaria isn't among them.

Is it your view that any medicine that predates modern medical research techniques is automatically worthless quackery, even if it has since been found to contain active ingredients using modern methods?

If I had been a Chinese doctor in 1850 and you came to me with an inflamed ankle, should I have said "Try rubbing on this oil, and come back again if it doesn't work", or should it be "I have no way of proving conclusively that any of my medicines work, so it would be unethical for me to treat you and you will just have to put up with the ankle. Try again in about 100 years" ... ?