Friday, March 21, 2008

Appendix HH. - Regarding Sectarian:

[to return to the main document, click here, http://standtoyourduty.blogspot.com/]

.

01. schools:

.

02. national org.s:

.

03. state org.s:

.

04. journals:

.

the Journal of the American Medical Association states:

.

.

[in "Sectarian Medicine"{per Gevitz, N. (? ?); JAMA, vol. 257, issue 12, 1636-1640, 03-27-1987}]

.

"dominant groups in religion, politics, and medicine have often used the term
'sectarian' to describe one who subscribes to a 'false' doctrine. However, those practitioners so labeled usually prefer more positive terms to characterize their ideas and organizational structure. In medicine, such movements seek to be referred to as the 'reformed' or 'new' practice, or more generally as a 'school' or 'philosophy,' with the regulars in turn being called the 'old' practice or the 'majority school,' but never 'scientific medicine' without the modification 'so-called.' Some academicians analyzing the relationship between these oppositional forces have sought to devise less value-laden terminology. However, the term 'sectarian medicine' will be employed here, for it more fully describes the deviant social status and social movement participation of such practitioners so covered [...including] homeopathy";

.

.

05: practitioners:

.

Sampson, W. (MD ?) states:

.

[some bona fides here, http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/544296]

.

i.

.

[in “Editorial: Scientific Reviews of Medical Journals”{ The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine and Aberrant Medical Practices, fall/winter 2004-05, vol.8, no.2}]

.

[concerning] the [bias] problems that ‘alternative medicine’-sectarian systems and implausible methods-present to the scientific community, and for access to accurate information […] sectarian medicine, pseudoscience, and their ideologues have made extraordinary inroads into the inner structure of science and medicine. This has gone almost unnoticed except by a few scientists and professionals in the skeptical and antifraud organizations […] the recent 2-year series on ‘CAM’ in the Annals of Internal Medicine, authored largely by sectarian advocates, is a classic example […] regarding the history of ‘CAM’ journals, a set of ‘alternative medicine’ journals was recommended by the director of what was then the Office of Alternative Medicine, who was also a practicing homeopath. Homeopathy is known scientifically as a pseudoscience and its practice as quackery. The NLM's error here was not to have sought outside opinion, because the OAM was, and the NCCAM still is, a politically and ideologically biased office devoted to the ideas of a few members of Congress. The only other governmental organization specifically assigned to evaluation of sectarian systems is the Cancer Advisory Council of the State of California (of which I am chairman pro tem). The only nongovernmental organizations devoted to analysis of sectarian systems and methods are the National Council against Health Fraud (of which I was a cofounder and Board Chairman), the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (of which I am a fellow), and service organizations such as the American Cancer Society's former Unproven Methods Committee (on which I served for 2 years). None of these organizations was, to my knowledge, consulted. I mention my role only to document and emphasize my long experience with these matters”;

.

(click here,

http://www.sram.org/0802/editorial.html)

.

ii.

.

[in “Ethics and Anomalous (Alternative) Medical Practices”{Medscape General Medicine, 07/07/06}]

.

“finally, when laws fail, ethics modifies physician behavior and maintains the profession's public trust. Unscientific and sectarian practitioners do not adhere to a scientific ethical system, or to medicine's standards of behavior. The decision to act ethically in the face of challenges of misinformation now lies with the physician, not with legislators or with boards”;

.

(click here,

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/537452)

.

iii.

.

[in "Readers' Responses and Author's Reply to 'The Reality of Traditional Chinese Medicines'"{Medscape General Medicine, 12/14/2006}]

.

"one of the extraordinary features of the CAM phenomenon has been a flood of papers on anomalous methods, including acupuncture, and of over 30 CAM-oriented journals that publish papers extolling sectarian systems that are unacceptable in standard journals. Some journal editors publish sectarian and TCM reports because of their unfamiliarity with the techniques, and the practice of using only experts (proponents, insiders) as reviewers. A colleague and I published a review of 33 systematic reviews of acupuncture for 17 conditions, representing at least 400 clinical trials. We found no firm evidence for efficacy [...] the recent growth of TCM accompanies the growth of other sectarian methods, such as chiropractic, naturopathy, and other herbal systems. It is a partially sociologic, political, ideologic, and economic phenomenon. The interest is in Western countries, while interest in modern medicine rises in China [...] Ms. Latremouille is more impressed with centuries of uncontrolled observations and with her belief in explanations that include things 'that cannot be seen and touched' than she is with rational explanations with proven and reproducible mechanisms. Her thinking illustrates one of the differences between thinking of sectarian medicine advocates and scientific physicians [...] the fact that many modern physicians cooperate with cult and sectarian practitioners is truly concerning. Physicians being miseducated and inculcated into believing untrue claims should concern all patients. That is the second reason for the editorial [...] the sooner sectarian advocates come to terms with their biases, lack of knowledge, and misinterpretations of reality, the sooner we can cease arguing, learn from their errors, and get on with more productive paths";

.

(click here,

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/548353)

.

.

.

.

.

06. academics & authors:

.

07. reference tools:

.

.

No comments: