@Isdaril Placebo and nocebo may be real, but, for example, drugs aren't approved unless they have a significantly *better* outcome than the placebo group. The scientific method is a very effective tool — not perfect, but a heck of a lot better than the alternatives! If a proper double-blind prospective trial shows something works or doesn't work, I'm inclined to believe it unless there's an equally good reason not to. There's a *big* difference between believing in folklore or conventional wisdom or rumor, and believing in what's actually been tested and proven.
We're taught that some of the medical "facts" we are taught will be disproven or supplanted within ten years of graduating, and how to judge how well-proven a technique/drug/practice is. I know that some of the drugs I prescribe are *very* well-proven to be safe and effective, and others are the best we've been able to figure out so far but more studies are ongoing, and that some are what should work based on all the knowledge and theory we have now but they *haven't* been tested yet. The key is to use the best option available. If I have a choice between something that's been tested for decades but only works so-so and something that is new but has *much* better results in clinical trials, I'll talk to the client about those options. If they ask me about a new age or right-wing-conspiracy option that hasn't been tested but every scientific understanding we have says it shouldn't help and might do harm, I'll discourage it, but if there's no reason *not* to use it, I don't care, as long as they don't ignore something we *know* actually *will* help and is safe in favor of the complete unknown.
0
@Isdaril Placebo and nocebo may be real, but, for example, drugs aren't approved unless they have a significantly *better* outcome than the placebo group. The scientific method is a very effective tool — not perfect, but a heck of a lot better than the alternatives! If a proper double-blind prospective trial shows something works or doesn't work, I'm inclined to believe it unless there's an equally good reason not to. There's a *big* difference between believing in folklore or conventional wisdom or rumor, and believing in what's actually been tested and proven.
We're taught that some of the medical "facts" we are taught will be disproven or supplanted within ten years of graduating, and how to judge how well-proven a technique/drug/practice is. I know that some of the drugs I prescribe are *very* well-proven to be safe and effective, and others are the best we've been able to figure out so far but more studies are ongoing, and that some are what should work based on all the knowledge and theory we have now but they *haven't* been tested yet. The key is to use the best option available. If I have a choice between something that's been tested for decades but only works so-so and something that is new but has *much* better results in clinical trials, I'll talk to the client about those options. If they ask me about a new age or right-wing-conspiracy option that hasn't been tested but every scientific understanding we have says it shouldn't help and might do harm, I'll discourage it, but if there's no reason *not* to use it, I don't care, as long as they don't ignore something we *know* actually *will* help and is safe in favor of the complete unknown.