bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 34,279
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Of course, there's another aspect of this that also needs to be considered - safety.
Charlie doesn't know how it works. If we accept (for the sake of argument) that his claim that it relieves pain is true, then we know that he is doing something to alter the internal state of his patients - and he has no idea what that is, or whether it might cause harm.
Will his patients die of brain tumours over the next five years after treatment? We don't know - and without any proper studies, we can't know.
I, personally, can dismiss this risk as nonexistent; but only because I am confident that he is not having ANY effect on the patients. He hasn't got that excuse; so how does he justify doing an unknown thing with unknowable side-effects to anyone?
If the makers of Tylenol had taken this approach, then what would inspire patients to avoid taking a hundred tablets for severe pain? We know that one or two are good, but that dozens or hundreds can be fatal. But Charlie doesn't know whether his "treatment" might cause long term harm, or whether it might cause acute harm in some situations.
What if, for one patient in ten thousand, instead of turning off pain, he turns off breathing, or heartbeat? In the absence of any understanding of what it is he is doing, we have no way to tell if it does.
One thing we do know is that any therapy which has beneficial effects, also has the potential for harmful side effects. Charlie appears not to have made any attempt to measure (or even to be on the lookout for) these.
Charlie doesn't know how it works. If we accept (for the sake of argument) that his claim that it relieves pain is true, then we know that he is doing something to alter the internal state of his patients - and he has no idea what that is, or whether it might cause harm.
Will his patients die of brain tumours over the next five years after treatment? We don't know - and without any proper studies, we can't know.
I, personally, can dismiss this risk as nonexistent; but only because I am confident that he is not having ANY effect on the patients. He hasn't got that excuse; so how does he justify doing an unknown thing with unknowable side-effects to anyone?
If the makers of Tylenol had taken this approach, then what would inspire patients to avoid taking a hundred tablets for severe pain? We know that one or two are good, but that dozens or hundreds can be fatal. But Charlie doesn't know whether his "treatment" might cause long term harm, or whether it might cause acute harm in some situations.
What if, for one patient in ten thousand, instead of turning off pain, he turns off breathing, or heartbeat? In the absence of any understanding of what it is he is doing, we have no way to tell if it does.
One thing we do know is that any therapy which has beneficial effects, also has the potential for harmful side effects. Charlie appears not to have made any attempt to measure (or even to be on the lookout for) these.