Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitalis)
    Quacks.
    Yep, I agree.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitalis)
    Poke people with acupuncture needles in places that aren't in the "energy pathways" or whatever. Like literally poking someone with a needle lol.

    I've personally seen a guy come in with a pneumothorax thanks to his acupuncturist!

    badtimes.

    I take your point - but then how many conventional drugs do we use that we don't have mechanisms for? GA, virtually the whole antidepressent pharmacopia is uncertain in terms of mechanism. We don't really know how many things work, but we still routinely use them on patients, without explaination or justification. If we cut use on the basis of lack of conviction, then the BNF would have to be vastly reduced.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RollerBall)
    I stand corrected, I read an article in New Scientist years ago. I trust a scientific journal more though. What's your opinion on chiropractors?
    If clicking joints was useful, teachers would never have tried to stop you clicking your fingers in primary school. What's the difference between a chiropractor and an osteopath anyway? (As you can tell, I may have successfully skived every CAM session so far).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitalis)
    Yah, this was only published this month. Good lil article. On Science Direct
    Ah that makes sense then. I've to do a placement with the quackers for a day this summer as part of my course... should be interesting :rolleyes:
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Becca-Sarah)
    If clicking joints was useful, teachers would never have tried to stop you clicking your fingers in primary school. What's the difference between a chiropractor and an osteopath anyway? (As you can tell, I may have successfully skived every CAM session so far).
    No idea. It came up in MedSoc, my GP couldn't even tell me the difference. Presumably, very little.

    Is it necessarily bad to click your fingers? I do it all the time and a surgeon recently told me it was bad for me and that I'd make a rubbish surgeon if I continued to do it. He was a bit of an arse though.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wangers)
    badtimes.

    I take your point - but then how many conventional drugs do we use that we don't have mechanisms for? GA, virtually the whole antidepressent pharmacopia is uncertain in terms of mechanism. We don't really know how many things work, but we still routinely use them on patients, without explaination or justification. If we cut use on the basis of lack of conviction, then the BNF would have to be vastly reduced.
    It's not about deciphering a mechanism per se, it's more about studying the efficacy of drugs. Trials establishing whether a drug works don't necessarily require a mechanism, they need statistical significance.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RollerBall)
    No idea. It came up in MedSoc, my GP couldn't even tell me the difference. Presumably, very little.

    Is it necessarily bad to click your fingers? I do it all the time and a surgeon recently told me it was bad for me and that I'd make a rubbish surgeon if I continued to do it. He was a bit of an arse though.
    I don't know... Is the theory that the noise is bubbles in your synovial fluid popping actually true or utter bull?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wangers)
    badtimes.

    I take your point - but then how many conventional drugs do we use that we don't have mechanisms for? GA, virtually the whole antidepressent pharmacopia is uncertain in terms of mechanism. We don't really know how many things work, but we still routinely use them on patients, without explaination or justification. If we cut use on the basis of lack of conviction, then the BNF would have to be vastly reduced.
    I seen in a recent paper that antidepressants only have the same effect as a placebo...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wangers)
    badtimes.

    I take your point - but then how many conventional drugs do we use that we don't have mechanisms for? GA, virtually the whole antidepressent pharmacopia is uncertain in terms of mechanism. We don't really know how many things work, but we still routinely use them on patients, without explaination or justification. If we cut use on the basis of lack of conviction, then the BNF would have to be vastly reduced.
    Well, all drugs that have a license have been through extensive clinical trials, firstly for safety then efficacy. Drugs aren't just made and then randomly given to people on a whim. They are designed for use based on physiological principles or tailored from other side effects (e.g. digoxin, sildenafil) etc.

    The problem with quack medicine (I refuse to call it CAM) is that it is wholly untested, based on random and unscientific practice that has somehow escaped regulation for this many years. At least conventional medication has been trialled, who knows what the long term effects of eating tiger bones mixed with arsenic has?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Becca-Sarah)
    I don't know... Is the theory that the noise is bubbles in your synovial fluid popping actually true or utter bull?
    It's not harmful and it is gas in your synovial fluids being compressed when you say hyperextend your finger. This raises the pressure in the fluid and forces the gas to form bubbles, that pop. Like a mini-"bends" going on in your finger.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by It could be lupus)
    I seen in a recent paper that antidepressants only have the same effect as a placebo...
    That's a ridiculously generic statement though. Whilst I'd agree that most AD's in mild depression have no effect whatsoever, once you get into moderate and severe depression I don't think you can argue that they don't work, and even then it's dependent on what drug (and class) you're actually talking about.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kinkerz)
    It's not about deciphering a mechanism per se, it's more about studying the efficacy of drugs. Trials establishing whether a drug works don't necessarily require a mechanism, they need statistical significance.

    On of the assessments for evidence of causality must include biologically plausible mechanism of action. Otherwise we could just dish out whatever we wanted without studies as potentially everything probably has a statistical effect somewhere. If you shot all the people in a A+E waiting room - there would be no 4 hour breaches on that day, fantastic.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by digitalis)
    It's not harmful and it is gas in your synovial fluids being compressed when you say hyperextend your finger. This raises the pressure in the fluid and forces the gas to form bubbles, that pop. Like a mini-"bends" going on in your finger.
    I just hyperextended my fingers in an attempt to test this, and subluxed one of them. That was a stupid idea... :facepalm:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Becca-Sarah)
    I just hyperextended my fingers in an attempt to test this, and subluxed one of them. That was a stupid idea... :facepalm:
    Pwned!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Becca-Sarah)
    That's a ridiculously generic statement though. Whilst I'd agree that most AD's in mild depression have no effect whatsoever, once you get into moderate and severe depression I don't think you can argue that they don't work, and even then it's dependent on what drug (and class) you're actually talking about.
    This isn't the paper I had read but it is one stating pretty much the same thing. Also there is nothing to say a placebo doesn't work. All I am saying is that the difference between improvement when on a placebo and an antidepressant does not appear to be significant
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Becca-Sarah)
    If clicking joints was useful, teachers would never have tried to stop you clicking your fingers in primary school. What's the difference between a chiropractor and an osteopath anyway? (As you can tell, I may have successfully skived every CAM session so far).
    AFAIK Osteopathy involves 'manipulating the bones of the skull'.

    Erm, have you found these bones slide past each other easily/at all in the DR, I don't think so...

    And kudos to the quacktitioner hatin' in here.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wangers)
    On of the assessments for evidence of causality must include biologically plausible mechanism of action. Otherwise we could just dish out whatever we wanted without studies as potentially everything probably has a statistical effect somewhere. If you shot all the people in a A+E waiting room - there would be no 4 hour breaches on that day, fantastic.
    Statistical significance isn't that easy to attain.

    There are plenty of drugs out there without a satisfactory mechanism of action, but the vast majority have gone through rigorous clinical trials with large sample sizes to establish statistical significance. Trials need to show that the drugs work, they don't need to come up with a concrete mechanism. It's more difficult to prove that an ineffective drug works that it is to come up with a plausible biological hypothesis for the mechanism.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kinkerz)
    Statistical significance isn't that easy to attain.

    There are plenty of drugs out there without a satisfactory mechanism of action, but the vast majority have gone through rigorous clinical trials with large sample sizes to establish statistical significance. Trials need to show that the drugs work, they don't need to come up with a concrete mechanism. It's more difficult to prove that an ineffective drug works that it is to come up with a plausible biological hypothesis for the mechanism.
    Actually most of the drugs that are out there without a satisfactory mechanism of action would not pass drug trials today due to the fact that there is no satisfactory mechanism of action
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mushi_master)
    AFAIK Osteopathy involves 'manipulating the bones of the skull'.
    How? I don't even...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mushi_master)
    AFAIK Osteopathy involves 'manipulating the bones of the skull'.

    And kudos to the quacktitioner hatin' in here.
    No, this isn't the case. I will expand on it tomorrow if it is still going. Basically osteopathy is the less quackish alternative to chiropractering, which was invented as a business model by it's sharp-minded inventor.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.