Oh, indeed. But I think the underlying woo doesn't change the fact that they may have *some* positive application, even if it's not for the reason the practitioners argue (and I'm not convinced that most people who use these things believe or necessarily even know about the complicated pseudoscience behind them), even if it's just the placebo effect. And reflexology probably won't cause any additional harm.
Whereas something like chelation therapy seems as though it could potentially be extremely harmful. For all we know, it's harming people right now, and we'll discover how in a few years - like with sunbed tanning.
I kind of feel there should be a sub-division of the efficacy category into "possible benefits" (which for eg reflexology might be 'diminishing foot pain' or 'stress reduction' or something like that, but would still say 'no evidence that it magically helps with stomach problems') and possible harm, which means all the gentle touching or not-quite-touching therapies would generally fall into "mostly harmless', while chelation would be "whoa, danger time!"
Does that make sense? I do feel there's an important distinction between woo which doesn't do what it says on the tin, but doesn't really do any harm (unless people decide to forego conventional medicine and rely on it) and might have some beneficial side-effects, and between woo which can be actively harmful.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2010-08-23 08:40 am (UTC)Whereas something like chelation therapy seems as though it could potentially be extremely harmful. For all we know, it's harming people right now, and we'll discover how in a few years - like with sunbed tanning.
I kind of feel there should be a sub-division of the efficacy category into "possible benefits" (which for eg reflexology might be 'diminishing foot pain' or 'stress reduction' or something like that, but would still say 'no evidence that it magically helps with stomach problems') and possible harm, which means all the gentle touching or not-quite-touching therapies would generally fall into "mostly harmless', while chelation would be "whoa, danger time!"
Does that make sense? I do feel there's an important distinction between woo which doesn't do what it says on the tin, but doesn't really do any harm (unless people decide to forego conventional medicine and rely on it) and might have some beneficial side-effects, and between woo which can be actively harmful.