Oh yeah? Thalidomide! Where’s your science now?

[HuckleB]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/oh-yeah-thalidomide-wheres-your-science-now/#more-15153

"Online discussions on the merits of alternative medicine can get quite heated. And its proponents, given enough time, will inevitably cite the same drug as “evidence” of the failings of science. Call it Gavura’s Law, with apologies to Mike Godwin: As an online discussion on the effectiveness of alternative medicine grows longer, the probability that thalidomide will be cited approaches one.

...

To this commenter, “science has been wrong before.” And that invalidates science, and apparently validates homeopathy. It’s a fallacious argument. But does thalidomide actually represent a failing of science-based medicine? No, not even close. It’s so wrong, it’s not even wrong. Thalidomide is good example of the importance of science-based medicine and why allowing alternative medicine to be sold in the absence of good science is a concern.

The broad strokes of thalidomide causing thousands of birth defects are well known. But the details are important to understand the implications to regulation, and to science-based medicine, today.

...

Thalidomide was a very real tragedy with a huge human cost. It’s most important lesson is that assumptions of safety and efficacy, in the absence of evidence, can be catastrophic. Citing thalidomide as a a reason to reject science-based medicine is not only fallacious, it reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the lessons learned."



-------------------------------------------


A well-thought out piece that resonates across many discussions on this very board.

[xchrom]

1. excellent. nt

[bemildred]

2. I remember that.

I thought it was more a failure of profit-based medicine, and of being in a hurry to get new drugs out there making money. A lot of the testing regimen we have now orginated back then, but the money problem has gotten worse, if anything.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001053/

Wow, leprosy and cancer.

[dmallind]

3. Ah - 'tis the equivalent of Piltdown Man for creationists. IIRC thalidomide has some promise still.

[get the red out]

4. allowing alternative medicine to be sold....

Let's just think up some more freedoms to restrict while we are at it. Let's not allow cars that aren't hybrids, too polluting (very true); so we can just pass a law to take all those bad cars away pronto, sorry about your luck. I drive a hybrid, won't affect me, suckers! Oh, you know what? I don't eat hamburgers either, so lets get rid of all that excess cholesterol in the American diet, those poor souls will thank us later, you'll see. They aren't smart enough to make food decisions anyway.

We can get really good and totalitarian if we want to, of course it will be for everyone's own good as wisdom is distributed by the wise and caring rulers from on high. No don't try to debate us, you will only be showing your ignorance, what a pity the peons are so lacking in intelligence, all the more reason to give them loving control over every move. (Of course, we will ban herbal medicine and vitamins in a heart-beat but cigarettes will only get gross warning labels, too much tax money generated don't ya know).

I'm not big on "not allowing" people to make their own person decisions in a so-called "free" country. I regularly see standard medical doctor, and I have several prescriptions, so I'm not against that, FWIW. But these slippery slopes into "I know what's best for you so let's put it into law" really worry the hell out of me.

[bemildred]

5. Yep, you cannot have a "free people" herded around like children.

Freedom and responsibility go together, just like authority and responsibility, and for the same reasons.

[HuckleB]

6. So you're saying we should not have any laws against scams?

:shrug:

[get the red out]

7. All or nothing thinking

That statement doesn't even make sense, it's too broad. What you call a "scam" someone else finds to be beneficial in some way. Generally, scams are NEVER found to be beneficial at all to the victims in any way. Madoff's former clients aren't saying they got any benefit at all and they universally wanted him prosecuted. There is quite a bit of difference. I think McDonalds is a nasty scam, so should everyone have to do without their burgers and fries? Ever see "Supersize Me"? We have the right to choose, and their damned food isn't healthy but people should have the right to eat the garbage.

Using "scam" as you did, as a huge blanket automatically saying I must be against laws against "scams", automatically puts anything anyone can find something wrong with in the category of scam and of course is supposed to box me in. Freedom is far more complecated than you would have it be I'm afraid.

[BuddhaGirl]

8. +1000

:thumbsup:

[HuckleB]

11. I love it when you prove my point!

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

10. You do understand that you just proved my point, don't you?

Just because someone is fooled by a scam doesn't mean it is not a scam. That alone kills your argument.

How ridiculous do you want the world to get in an age where evidence is more and more valuable?

[Warpy]

9. I always point out that thalidomide was banned by the FDA

for sale in the US and the few women who did get it during their pregnancies got it when they or their husbands had visited Europe.

In any case, thalidomide is turning out to have some surprising uses these days: to treat skin lesions due to leprosy, to treat some cancers, as a strong adjunctive therapy in lupus and RA, and to treat lesions and wasting found with HIV. It might turn out to be one of the more useful drugs out there for many otherwise incurable conditions. It just can't be given to pregnant women.

So there's your answer if some idiot says thalidomide is proof positive that modern medicine doesn't work.