Trick or Treatment 1

In trick or treatment the authors used the method of clinical trials to evaluate scientifically the efficacy of various alternative medicines, particularly acupuncture, homeopathy, chiropractic therapy and herbal medicine.
They sought to answer the fundamental question is alternative medicine effective for treating disease? Which therapies work and which ones are useless? Which therapies are safe and which ones are dangerous?

Chapter 1 looked at scientific method and explained how scientists can determine if a particular therapy is effective or not.

Chapter 2 applies scientific method to acupuncture
Chapter 3 applies scientific method to homeopathy
Chapter 4 applies scientific method to chiropractic therapy
Chapter 5 applies scientific method to herbal medicine

Chapter 6 looks at the results and says, so what?
The issue of placebo is dealt with more fully, and an examination made as to whether pure or near pure placebos should be administered by doctors today.
The team tackle the issue of how the alternative and complementary medicine industry has become such a juggernaut and names the supposed culprits of this shameless promotion.
The authors finally look at what they see as critical for the improved position of alternative medicine, namely thorough regulation of what they see as the wild west of alternative medicine.

The authors also provide a rapid fire appendix covering evaluations of 30 other common alternative medicines.

The authors defined alternative medicine: any therapy that is not accepted by the majority of mainstream doctors, and typically.. these alternative medicines have mechanisms that lie outside of the current understanding of modern medicine. in the language of science, alternative therapies are said to be biologically implausible.


The principles of evidence based medicine
What are they?
Ar they effective for evaluating alternative medicine?

Placebo affect
Do the authors explain the placebo affect thoroughly?
i would say no they don't give it enough attention. do they look at any anecdotal evidence as to the physiological affects of the placebo affect. they look at a lot of anecdotal evidence as to affects of placebo that apparently do not have a physiological follow through. Is it within the definition Look at not, can alternative medicine cure cancer but in fact is there sufficient anecdotal evidence that the placebo affect is so powerful in harnessing our mind, that it has physiological effect? For example: unexplained recovery from cancer. what evidence has been published about the effects of alternative medicine in cancer sufferers, and if the placebo affect is so strong that someone recovers from a cancer. If there is strong evidence then isn't placebo a worthwhile and valid treatment in modern times?

A look at energy, meridians and the power of the mind
the authors are quick to quash the notion of Chi'i, energy, meridians and other philosophical basis of alternative therapies, essentially all connected to the mind and spirit. Certainly the possibility of spirit existing is scientifically implausible, but what about the power of the mind?
How provable are effects of the mind, and how connected is the power of mind to energy? If the power of the mind could be behind energy, and energy can be harnessed as can the power of the mind, then can we prove energy exists? I'm certainly a believer in energy, and it relates very clearly to the mind. For example with yoga, I relax myself with my mind but i prefer to term the process letting in good energy and breathing out the bad.
is there a difference between the placebo affects of any alternative medicines and the conventional medicine used to treat the same condition?

Witches, Floods and Wonderdrugs

Interesting points:

Theme of tension and conflict of interest between the "institution" who are our supposed "experts" and individuals that are targeted by the risk management process as well as those other individuals that are stakeholders in the process. The job or role of risk manager/ risk analyser has become a difficult role. These does generally well paid, with constant conflict of interest between institutions and environmental/ political goals. Somewhat a glamour role " witch hunting", this role is created to deal with sometime perceived risks. How much does our fear and ignorance lead to inefficient allocation of resources towards this field? How much can we actually achieve in preventing the results of a "bad risk" when uncertainty exists?

Maurice Wilkins and DNA

The "Hunt for Hereditary Bearing Substance" in human blood became an obsession of early pioneers, even as stem cell research is a controversial and boundary pushing science today.

The plight of Maurice Wilkins highlights the importance of priority in scientific publishing. Had Wilkins been more sneaky and others less attentive, Wilkins may well have published first and he may have been, justifiably, heralded at the father of DNA in the mainstream consciousness.

The Early Days

• 1871- Fredreich Miescher discovered DNA as a chemical entity. Discovered 'Nuclein'. He commented nuclein might function as a genetic substance
• 1889- Richard Altman able to free nuclein of its protein component and had 'nucleic acid'. Belief that protein was hereditary bearing, not nucleic acid.
  
• 1919- Phoebus Leven seperated the nuclein molecule into all chemical components, still thinking that protein held the heredity
• 1912- Max van Laue observed exposure of simple crystal to X-rays resulted in specific shapes on photographic plate. Crystallography/ X-ray diffraction born

The next Gen

• Fred Griffith- Discovered dealdy pneumococcal bacteria could impart identical deadliness to its progeny
• Oswald Avery- December 1943 "DNA confirmed as the chemical substance responsible for transforming principle". However, their paper was not widely accepted.

Wilson, Cricks Frankin and Wilkins

Maurice Wilkins- NZ Born

• Hunch that study of DNA's structure was the key to understanding the genetic carrier
• In 1947 joined Kings College London as assistant director of Biophysics Unit
• 1950 received calf thymus DNA from a Swiss physicist, and from this first photo of DNA by X-ray Crystallography, with Raymond Gosling
• 1951 Wilkins sketched a helix form of DNA, but yet unproven
  

Rosalind Franklin

• Recruited to Kings to assist in mid-1950
• Franklin disliked Wilkins and in the end kept her critical research findings to herself
  
• Late spring 1952 Franklin used microfocus tube and microcamera in X-raying a DNA fibre and got first clear diffraction photograph of DNA
  
• Sacked by Randall 1952 and handed over 'Photograph 51', confirming at last the double helix structure of DNA

Francis Crick and James Watson

• Watson in 1950 a 23 year old post doc became obsessed with the hunt for heredity on seeing Wilkins X-ray diffractions of calf thymus DNA
• Watson motivated by being the first to explain a great mystery in life, and win a Nobel Prize for it
  
• With no background in that area, Watson recruited Cricks old friend of Wilkins and rallied him to be his colleague at Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory
  
• Watson and Crick used evidence from Wilkins, Franklin and other scientists to help them building models of the DNA structure, they did no experimentation of their own
  
• Watson and Crick built models throughout 51, had a brief time off it, and resumed for most of 52

The final moments- 1953

• Wilkins shows Photograph 51 to Watson
• February 27 1953 Watsons chemist corrected Watson on one aspect of the model, and the next morning employing cardboard replicas of the four bases Watson and Crick stumbled on the correct way of connecting the two chains
• By early March the game was up, and Wilkins sent a letter to Watson and Crick " From one rat to another, good racing"

Priority

• Nature magazine published DNA report of Watson and Crick, DNA report of Wilkins, Stokes and Wilson, and Franklin and Gosling.
  
• Of the 3 reports, Watsons and Cricks was first, to be referred to by the others as the 'Preceding communication'. It was also short with an illustration and easy to understand.
  
• Watson and Crick received nearly all the credit for the discovery of the helical structure of DNA

Hi Rebecca, received your invitation.
Rachel

hey rebecca

hi rebecca
got your invitation
john