1) The article I'm looking at is from the Minnesota Daily. The article, "Evidence for Alternative Medicine" is also a letter to the editor regarding a previous article which stated that the U was supporting homeopathy because a student group invited a speaker on the topic of homeopathy. This article seeks to support homeopathy by referencing one article that was published in favor of homeopath and by citing that integrative medicine is supported by many hospitals, clinics, and U.S. National Institutes of Health. The problem is that homeopathy is a small subcategory of alternative medicine and that one successful case in homeopathy is not enough for legitimation.
http://www.mndaily.com/2010/02/14/evidence-alternative-medicine
2) While Dr. Kreitzer's defense of inviting speakers of homeopathy was valid, I found that her defense of homeopathy as a whole was lacking.
First, the evidence given to support homeopathy was not sound. Only one example of a successful homeopathic remedy is not sufficient evidence for the legitimation of an entire branch of alternative medicine. Additionally, the article that was cited as successful was highly criticized after its publication in 2005.
Secondly, the reference to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine for validation of homeopathy was not relevant. While NCCAM's goal to provide evidence-based support for the field of integrative medicine, this field is much larger than homeopathy alone. Similarly, the citing of the 44 medical schools with programs in integrative medicine programs is also out of the scope of the argument regarding homeopathy.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Hmm... I think this is pretty close. I think maybe the opening sentence could say "defense of CAM as whole is lacking" because that is where you ultimately go, then mention the homeopathy example... Or maybe I am wrong. Maybe you are meaning to mostly argue against the validity of homeopathy?....
ReplyDeleteI do think something needs to change with the ending--she's really not arguing for the validity of homeopathy, but for the value of respecting other medical traditions, and not just dismissing them off-hand. Maybe you could lead into something about how the controversy created is evidence that more clinical evidence is needed--and needed to be published before these modalities will be considered un-fringe (?)--and that it should be done cautiously, I think that is what you are arguing?
Could you mention why the study was "highly criticized"--this might be helpful, too. I know I was wondering about it.
Good luck!
I think you might want to go a little bit more in depth regarding that the argument is not "sound" only because your first point that one example isn't sufficient enough is really the only thing backing it up. Just because an article is highly criticized does not necessarily mean that the article is totally lacking, like Julie said, maybe mention why it was criticized showing how the argument is not sound. Hopefully that helps a little and makes some sense?
ReplyDeleteHave you ever wondered why forms of alternative medicine like Traditional Chinese Medicine have survived for hundreds of years? There must be SOME evidence behind it. As mentioned in class, the placebo effect is quite powerful. Even so, just because there's a speaker on alternative medicine doesn't mean that scientific medicine has to be shut down.
ReplyDeleteThe question I'm getting at here is this: just because this method isn't "scientific" does that really mean that it's devoid of evidence?