Hacker News Reader

Comment by stackghost | Hacker News Reader

I can maybe get on board with naturopathic treatments, provided there's some scientific evidence behind them, but "alternative health" usually means homeopathy, mysticism, or something equally woo that has no basis in verifiable fact.

Usually it's about as scientific as a blood letting. "My friend Norma Rae had cancer and she sat under a pyramid whose sides were constructed of juniper wood cut in the golden ratio to focus the purifying energy of the salt crystals and she got better! Doctors don't know everything."

View on HN

Generally speaking if there were evidence that a treatment worked it wouldn't be alternative.

We definitely do not live in that ideal word where this is often enough true. Just take a look at the zerocarb/carnivore community and, just as a random example, IBD and Chron's remission, or keto and type 2 diabetes, etc.

Right, so if there's no evidence that something is effective at treating $medicalCondition then what is the difference between that and sitting under a pyramid made of juniper?

I just used it as an umbrella term. That you chose to associate it with "woo" exactly illustrate my point about reflexive dismissal.

I'm talking about things like high-dose vitamins, some medicinal plants, various therapies like cold exposure, etc. Nothing unscientific or mystical about them, just that, as with other chronic ailments, doctors are not trained or knowledgeable on, for the most part.

>Nothing unscientific or mystical about them

Do those things have any reputable evidence behind them?

That takes time, interest from the medical community, and expensive studies. People with a chronic and unrecognized condition don't have that luxury.

But actually, yes, some of them have, maybe not for this particular condition, but one can make reasonable inferences that some are worth trying. And anecdotes have value too.

Okay so no evidence, got it.

>And anecdotes have value too.

No, they do not.

They can have value to an invidiual, not everything can or has to be science, and remember this is about an area that lacks any science, not even recognized by doctors.

>this is about an area that lacks any science

Incorrect. An absence of evidence is not the same thing as an absence of science.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com