Americans Spend $34 Billion on "Alternative Medicines"

[ralph124c]

..what does this say about the average American's intelligence? Was P.T. Barnum right? I was wondering..since people blow all of this money on homeopathic "medicines", herbal remedies, and eveb more bizarre therapies (like coffee enemas for cancer), and each of these quack cures carries a disclaimer "not intended to diagnose or treat any disease", why do people accept these totally unproven remedies?
Is it because most people didn't take HS science?
What is going on here?:smack:

[Rolken]

Hope springs eternal.

[Bosda Di'Chi of Tricor]

..what does this say about the average American's intelligence? Was P.T. Barnum right? I was wondering..since people blow all of this money on homeopathic "medicines", herbal remedies, and eveb more bizarre therapies (like coffee enemas for cancer), and each of these quack cures carries a disclaimer "not intended to diagnose or treat any disease", why do people accept these totally unproven remedies?
Is it because most people didn't take HS science?
What is going on here?:smack:

It bespeaks the unaffordability of modern medicine in America.
And, of course, their suffering & desperation.
Next question.

[Cisco]

I wonder how much it was before the industry got Orrin Hatch in their pocket.

[DanBlather]

It bespeaks the unaffordability of modern medicine in America.
And, of course, their suffering & desperation.
Next question.It's just as bad in Eurpope and Asia, probably worse. The drugstores in Europe are full of homeopathic remedies. In Asia there are all sorts of traditional cures. Some of them probably work, but many are not only nonsense but lead to the slaughter of bears, tigers, and rhinos for their body parts.

[Jackmannii]

This embrace of "alternative medicine" is due to a lot of things.

One is magical thinking, of the kind that wants to embrace a single fundamental cause of all illness (the one(s) that THEY don't want you to know) and leads to the belief that eliminating "toxins" or taking glyconutrients or eliminating parasites will make them well and happy.

Many suffer from chronic conditions that mainstream medicine can alleviate, but not yet prevent or cure. Alt med promises cures.

Some people have had bad experiences with the health care system, see alt med as a cheaper way to treat themselves, want to "take control", or have bought into philosophies and religions that are at odds with mainstream medicine.

And yes, many people are unaware of or wilfully disbelieve in the scientific method and lack critical thinking skills, thus are easy prey for quacks and scam artists.

Most of that $34 billion spent on alternative remedies is straight down the rathole of wasted time and money. The dream of the practitioners and many patients is for all those billions to come out of the pockets of all Americans through universal health care.

If the supplement industry and practitioner lobbyists together with facilitators like Senators Orrin Hatch and Tom Harkin have their way, that's what will happen.

[AdmiralCrunch]

It bespeaks the unaffordability of modern medicine in America.
And, of course, their suffering & desperation.
Next question.

Yeah, last year when copper prices were so high a lot of people started wiring up their houses with kudzu and snakeskin. Price is certainly a factor, but people wouldn't be buying this crap if they knew it didn't work. Doctors and the medical community, like most experts, aren't really effective at convincing the general public that their expertise is better than folk wisdom and gut feelings. Plus it's *natural* to shoot coffee up your ass.

[Chief Pedant]

Consider the market for bottled water over ordinary potable water...we are curious beings when it comes to deciding what is good for our health.

We not only grasp at alternative straws; in the case of bottled water we pay for straws which are probably harmful for us and definitely harmful for the earth.

The alternative medicine market will only grow, driven in part by the fact that mainline medicine--while increasingly effective--is also increasingly dangerous. And I have long since given up on addressing public gullibility.

[Markxxx]

They are especially attractive if you don't have health insurance. For instance, I used to take albuterol for my asthma, not much one inhaler lasted me a year over even more. But then the US banned CFC and now there is no more generic albuterol. So instead of paying $9.00 for an inahler I would have to pay $54.00 because the new inhalers don't use CFC and are patented.

Now there are a lot of ways of getting around this but if you're not savvy you might turn to natural meds.

[Der Trihs]

Besides other reasons, I think it's because the government refuses to crack down on it. Since the FDA isn't squashing these people, I think that a lot of people assume that "alternative medicine" must be more than the fraud that it is.

[silenus]

Fold into the mix Big Pharmaceutical and its total lack of good PR, the alarmist news media, and the odd "miracle" and people will try something other than what the Government wants.

[athelas]

A society that loses its original religion will try to fill the gap with a faith in something else.

[runner pat]

Besides other reasons, I think it's because the government refuses to crack down on it. Since the FDA isn't squashing these people, I think that a lot of people assume that "alternative medicine" must be more than the fraud that it is.

One of the problems with cracking down on alternative medicine is it feeds into the part of the fantasy that "they" don't want you to know about A.M.

What would help if more people learned to think critically and see through the BS.

[Der Trihs]

A society that loses its original religion will try to fill the gap with a faith in something else.Except that America hasn't lost it's "original religion", unfortunately.

One of the problems with cracking down on alternative medicine is it feeds into the part of the fantasy that "they" don't want you to know about A.M.True. But at least it would warn off the people who don't buy that theory. Or even if it's considered unwise/illegal to actually forbid it, a media campaign could help. It's helped cut back on smoking, after all.

[DanBlather]

True. But at least it would warn off the people who don't buy that theory. Or even if it's considered unwise/illegal to actually forbid it, a media campaign could help. It's helped cut back on smoking, after all.The media is just too stupid. They believe this kind of crap themselves. Not only that, but they always want to give "both sides".

[MOIDALIZE]

Um...you guys do know that there's a capsule that can make a man larger, don't you?

[Jackmannii]

Another factor in the alt med circus is a general rejection of "experts" in favor of the salt-of-the-earth man/woman of the people who knows more than all those fancy-pants snooty types with education and degrees and such.

Who needs a dentist to help make your teeth whiter? Just follow the banner ad link and learn how a "mom" discovered the white teeth secret. Immunologists and pediatric infectious disease specialists, bah. Jenny McCarthy puts them in their place. And we don't need no steenkin' foreign policy experts to deal with other nations. Sarah Palin can see Russia from her back door.

When it comes to medicine, the Internet has made it easier to pick up lots of information. The problem is discriminating between reliable sources and those that are invalid/flaky/malicious. The educational system doesn't prepare us to know the difference, and too many will happily settle for whoever shouts the loudest or is slickest at confirming our prejudices.Um...you guys do know that there's a capsule that can make a man larger, don't you? If you check the fine print, the part that gets bigger is your butt.

[ITR champion]

..what does this say about the average American's intelligence? Was P.T. Barnum right? I was wondering..since people blow all of this money on homeopathic "medicines", herbal remedies, and eveb more bizarre therapies (like coffee enemas for cancer), and each of these quack cures carries a disclaimer "not intended to diagnose or treat any disease", why do people accept these totally unproven remedies?
Is it because most people didn't take HS science?
Here's another question. Why do people assume that drugs which are approved by the FDA somehow are backed by legitimate science? Or put another way, how much do you actually know about the process by which the FDA studies drugs? Do you know that the actual clinical trials are conducted not by the FDA, but rather by doctors who often have a financial interest in the outcome? Do you know that companies can do multiple trials on a drug and report only the positive outcomes while ignoring the negative outcomes, even if most of the trials have negative outcomes?
Many drugs that are assumed to be effective are probably little better than placebos, but there is no way to know because negative results are hidden. One clue was provided six years ago by four researchers who, using the Freedom of Information Act, obtained FDA reviews of every placebo-controlled clinical trial submitted for initial approval of the six most widely used antidepressant drugs approved between 1987 and 1999—Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Celexa, Serzone, and Effexor.[10] They found that on average, placebos were 80 percent as effective as the drugs. The difference between drug and placebo was so small that it was unlikely to be of any clinical significance. The results were much the same for all six drugs: all were equally ineffective. But because favorable results were published and unfavorable results buried (in this case, within the FDA), the public and the medical profession believed these drugs were potent antidepressants.

Clinical trials are also biased through designs for research that are chosen to yield favorable results for sponsors. For example, the sponsor's drug may be compared with another drug administered at a dose so low that the sponsor's drug looks more powerful. Or a drug that is likely to be used by older people will be tested in young people, so that side effects are less likely to emerge. A common form of bias stems from the standard practice of comparing a new drug with a placebo, when the relevant question is how it compares with an existing drug. In short, it is often possible to make clinical trials come out pretty much any way you want, which is why it's so important that investigators be truly disinterested in the outcome of their work.

Conflicts of interest affect more than research. They also directly shape the way medicine is practiced, through their influence on practice guidelines issued by professional and governmental bodies, and through their effects on FDA decisions. A few examples: in a survey of two hundred expert panels that issued practice guidelines, one third of the panel members acknowledged that they had some financial interest in the drugs they considered.[11] In 2004, after the National Cholesterol Education Program called for sharply lowering the desired levels of "bad" cholesterol, it was revealed that eight of nine members of the panel writing the recommendations had financial ties to the makers of cholesterol-lowering drugs.[12] Of the 170 contributors to the most recent edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), ninety-five had financial ties to drug companies, including all of the contributors to the sections on mood disorders and schizophrenia.[13] Perhaps most important, many members of the standing committees of experts that advise the FDA on drug approvals also have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.[14]
...
Melody Petersen, who was a reporter for The New York Times, has written a broad, convincing indictment of the pharmaceutical industry.[16] She lays out in detail the many ways, both legal and illegal, that drug companies can create "blockbusters" (drugs with yearly sales of over a billion dollars) and the essential role that KOLs play. Her main example is Neurontin, which was initially approved only for a very narrow use—to treat epilepsy when other drugs failed to control seizures. By paying academic experts to put their names on articles extolling Neurontin for other uses—bipolar disease, post-traumatic stress disorder, insomnia, restless legs syndrome, hot flashes, migraines, tension headaches, and more—and by funding conferences at which these uses were promoted, the manufacturer was able to parlay the drug into a blockbuster, with sales of $2.7 billion in 2003. The following year, in a case covered extensively by Petersen for the Times, Pfizer pleaded guilty to illegal marketing and agreed to pay $430 million to resolve the criminal and civil charges against it. A lot of money, but for Pfizer, it was just the cost of doing business, and well worth it because Neurontin continued to be used like an all-purpose tonic, generating billions of dollars in annual sales.

(From here.) (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/22237)

[sleeping]

Why do people assume that drugs which are approved by the FDA somehow are backed by legitimate science? ...


Great point, ITR.

Also, how are we defining "alternative medicine"? If you're talking about stuff like homeopathy, I'm with you. But there are also many substances that are not part of the formulary of any health insurance plan, yet have been found to be effective in clinical trials. And, drugs that are not being promoted by Big Pharma are less likely to undergo clinical testing, and therefore less likely to have such certificates of legitimacy.

[DanBlather]

But medicines pushed by big Phrauda are what is costing Americans $34B a year, not someone using cinnamon to control blood sugar. (Which, BTW, is dangerous if you use cassia cinammon because it contains the natural blood thninner coumarin.)

[Voyager]

Um...you guys do know that there's a capsule that can make a man larger, don't you?

Only in relation to his wallet.

[Jackmannii]

Here's another question. Why do people assume that drugs which are approved by the FDA somehow are backed by legitimate science? Or put another way, how much do you actually know about the process by which the FDA studies drugs? Do you know that the actual clinical trials are conducted not by the FDA, but rather by doctors who often have a financial interest in the outcome?Reporting such interests is mandatory for researchers publishing in quality journals. Major studies face increasingly heavy scrutiny in this regard.
Of course, some small and more obscure journals have not signed on to codes of practices that govern the top-flight, most influential publications. Financial conflicts of interest are not confined to mainstream research. They also affect research published on "alternative" remedies. Do you know that companies can do multiple trials on a drug and report only the positive outcomes while ignoring the negative outcomes, even if most of the trials have negative outcomes?This practice has been curbed by new requirements that clinical trials be made public in an online database (http://www.research.ucsf.edu/RschNews/V09N01/CT_Gov_Results_Registration.pdf).

Those wary of research because of past abuses in this regard should have a look at research into alternative medicine which skates around or ignores such requirements. For instance, a high percentage of studies on Chinese herbal medicine and acupuncture come (not surprisingly) from China, which is rife with problems affecting the integrity of research, including biases towards publishing only positive results. I refer you to R. Barker Bausell's excellent book Snake Oil Science, which notes that virtually 100% of articles appearing in Chinese publications find a positive effect of acupuncture, no matter what it's being tested on. By contrast, half or less of studies in Western journals report acupuncture being effective.

What I'm trying to get across here is that while there have been defects and ethical lapses in mainstream medical research, problems are being addressed and there's a healthy debate about further improvements still. Research into alternative medicine (when it's utilized at all instead of relying on testimonials and slick advertising) is comparatively in the dark ages. And it's not all about money either. You would think that with $34 billion in sales, the supplement companies and other entities getting fat off consumers would plow more than a minute fraction of their take into research. The problem is that with the sad state of government regulation, they have no incentive to do so.

[Jenaroph]

Also, how are we defining "alternative medicine"? If you're talking about stuff like homeopathy, I'm with you. But there are also many substances that are not part of the formulary of any health insurance plan, yet have been found to be effective in clinical trials.I'd like to second this. Massage therapy, for example, is considered alternative medicine, presumably part of the $34B, and done properly is not woo-woo pseudoscience.

[Cat Fight]

Jackmannii pretty much said everything I was going to. I imagine that many of the people spending the money on quack medicine are the same ones willing to forward along the spam that had them buy it in the first place.

I am curious how much of that spending is on weight-loss products. I'm not sure any other ailment causes people to put aside logic and rationality as quickly as obesity (or simply not being able to fit in their old jeans).

ETA Agree with those who aren't ready to lose hope in all Americans for pursuing some therapies that fall under the umbrella of 'alternative medicine.' Massages are god's gift.

[MarcusF]

Great point, ITR.

Also, how are we defining "alternative medicine"? If you're talking about stuff like homeopathy, I'm with you. But there are also many substances that are not part of the formulary of any health insurance plan, yet have been found to be effective in clinical trials. And, drugs that are not being promoted by Big Pharma are less likely to undergo clinical testing, and therefore less likely to have such certificates of legitimacy.The original source for the 34 billion figure is a report from the Centre for National Health Statistics available here (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nhsr/nhsr018.pdf)(pdf). I have not studied it in detail but it appears the net is drawn pretty wide.

For instance I see "Adults who made CAM self-care purchases spent a total of $4.1 billion out of pocket on yoga, tai chi, or qigong classes (Table 4)." Personally I would not see paying for yoga, tai chi, or qigong classes as paying for alternative medicine any more than I would paying for gym membership or swimming classes.

[hotflungwok]

Here's another question. Why do people assume that drugs which are approved by the FDA somehow are backed by legitimate science? Or put another way, how much do you actually know about the process by which the FDA studies drugs? Do you know that the actual clinical trials are conducted not by the FDA, but rather by doctors who often have a financial interest in the outcome? Do you know that companies can do multiple trials on a drug and report only the positive outcomes while ignoring the negative outcomes, even if most of the trials have negative outcomes?
If this is true, then why haven't alternative medicines been vetted by the FDA? There have been 'studies' on homeopathy that were declared positive, and there are many people who have a financial interest in it, so why isn't homeopathy recommended by the FDA?

[mswas]

Because anti-Psychotic drugs come with warnings that the side-effects might make you psychotic. Drugs are constantly recalled after they hurt tons of people. Drugs are often too expensive for people to afford. Some Doctors don't even look at their patients when prescribing drugs. Psychiatrists are handing out anti-depressants like they are candy. Surgeons leave scalpels inside of people on occasion. Sometimes people would rather not be cut open.

Then there is the semantic problem. Things that are actually helpful like chiropractic, massage therapy, or taking herbal supplements get caught up in the wide net that is 'alternative' medicine.

And sometimes Valerian root tea is what people need instead of being prescribed Ambien.

[mswas]

The original source for the 34 billion figure is a report from the Centre for National Health Statistics available here (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nhsr/nhsr018.pdf)(pdf). I have not studied it in detail but it appears the net is drawn pretty wide.

For instance I see "Adults who made CAM self-care purchases spent a total of $4.1 billion out of pocket on yoga, tai chi, or qigong classes (Table 4)." Personally I would not see paying for yoga, tai chi, or qigong classes as paying for alternative medicine any more than I would paying for gym membership or swimming classes.

That's a very good point.

[mswas]

The original source for the 34 billion figure is a report from the Centre for National Health Statistics available here (http://www.cdc.gov/NCHS/data/nhsr/nhsr018.pdf)(pdf). I have not studied it in detail but it appears the net is drawn pretty wide.

For instance I see "Adults who made CAM self-care purchases spent a total of $4.1 billion out of pocket on yoga, tai chi, or qigong classes (Table 4)." Personally I would not see paying for yoga, tai chi, or qigong classes as paying for alternative medicine any more than I would paying for gym membership or swimming classes.

Good point, so if we eliminate that figure we now deflate the figure to $ 29.8b. Also take out relaxation techniques as they probably are referring to stretching and meditation for another .2b so we can bring the inflated figure to 29.6b.

NVNMNP is suitably vague. I assume they are including people who make Ginseng and Goji smoothies in the morning under that number.


Chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation2 ......... 18,740 49.2 (1.07) 151,220 42.7 (1.16) 3,901,894 32.7 (1.81)
Massage2 ............................ 18,068 47.4 (0.98) 95,296 26.9 (0.86) 4,175,124 35.0 (1.53)
Movement therapies5 ..................... 3,146 8.3 (0.52) 30,345 8.6 (0.67) 552,438 4.6 (0.87)

So chiropractic, massage and movement therapies are caught in their broad net despite the fact that these all can have a completely scientific basis.

Sounds like this study is just incredibly vague and spreads too wide a net to be useful.

[Lobohan]

Personally I would not see paying for yoga, tai chi, or qigong classes as paying for alternative medicine any more than I would paying for gym membership or swimming classes.It depends on the claims made. If someone thinks yoga, tai chi or chigung classes are going to cure a disease they're out of luck.

[hotflungwok]

Because anti-Psychotic drugs come with warnings that the side-effects might make you psychotic. Drugs are constantly recalled after they hurt tons of people. Drugs are often too expensive for people to afford. Some Doctors don't even look at their patients when prescribing drugs. Psychiatrists are handing out anti-depressants like they are candy. Surgeons leave scalpels inside of people on occasion. Sometimes people would rather not be cut open.
So are all these common enough to justify people abandoning real medicine, or is this just the kind of fear mongering that does drive people away from real medicine?

Then there is the semantic problem. Things that are actually helpful like chiropractic, massage therapy, or taking herbal supplements get caught up in the wide net that is 'alternative' medicine.
Chiropracty is appropriate if what you need is you spine adjusted. Massage therapy is fine as long as it's for relaxation or minor muscle issues. Herbal supplements are fine if you need vitamins, and you actually have someone who actually know something about vitamins administering them. Other than this, it falls under alternative medicine.

And sometimes Valerian root tea is what people need instead of being prescribed Ambien.
And sometimes what people need to be educated in critical thinking.

Alternative medicine hurts people (http://whatstheharm.net/index.html), both directly and indirectly.

[mswas]

So are all these common enough to justify people abandoning real medicine, or is this just the kind of fear mongering that does drive people away from real medicine?

Fearmongering is an appeal to emotion and doesn't really have a place in the discussion.

It's not just fear mongering, it's genuine fear. Fearmongering implies that there is some sort of greater intentional conspiracy going on, there isn't. Modern medicine with it's consistent, "New study confirms that...", and then two years later, "New study confirms the opposite of old study...", and then two years later, "New study confirms that both of the previous studies were wrong...", and you get to a point of information overload on the part of individuals and they don't know who to trust. Add to that apocryphal stories from people's friends about some bad experience in a hospital or with a Doctor and you have a climate of distrust.


Chiropracty is appropriate if what you need is you spine adjusted. Massage therapy is fine as long as it's for relaxation or minor muscle issues. Herbal supplements are fine if you need vitamins, and you actually have someone who actually know something about vitamins administering them. Other than this, it falls under alternative medicine.

Yes, Chiropractic (not chiropracty) is appropriate for things that fall under its scope of practice, that's tautological. As for massage therapy, it's not just for relaxation or minor muscle issues. It's also for lymphatic drainage, there are neuromuscular issues that can be addressed such as referred pain. (See Travell and Simons (http://www.amazon.com/Travell-Simons-Myofascial-Pain-Dysfunction/dp/0683307711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249317988&sr=8-1)) Vitamins and Herbal supplements are different things. A vitamin is the mineral extracted, and herbal supplement is taking the herb unadulterated. And the assumption with herbal supplements is that the person recommending them DOESN'T know something about administering them. This study clearly doesn't make a distinction between how they are used. It doesn't specify whether the herbal supplements are recommended by an MD or not. It clearly is just pulling from total sales of said supplements. As for ginseng and goji smoothies, are you really arguing that I need a Doctor to prescribe a smoothie that will give me a little pick me up in the morning? Should I also have a prescription for Red Bull? Speaking of which, I wonder if sales of Red Bull are counted in that example. I wonder if Guarana drinks fall under their rubric.


And sometimes what people need to be educated in critical thinking.

That is always a good thing. Everyone needs to be educated in critical thinking. On this issue especially, both sides tend to leave critical thought at the door.

Alternative medicine hurts people (http://whatstheharm.net/index.html), both directly and indirectly.

I'll take that and raise you, Hospital care hurts people both directly and indirectly (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php). So you take your 400,000 deaths and I call and raise you 200,000 deaths PER YEAR.

Again, a better definition of alternative medicine needs to be brought into this before you can make such a broad claim. I am certain people have been hurt by swedish massage, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the practice itself, just as a Doctor who tells a girl with a malignant tumor that it's just a cyst from her endometriosis doesn't invalidate the work of oncologists.

The problem here is the insufficiently defined nature of alternative medicine. A massage therapist in NY state is legally liable for treating a condition without an MD's recommendation and can lose their license for such a procedure. The problem here is the either/or false dichotomy.

[mswas]

I clicked on a random link and found this one on cupping (http://whatstheharm.net/cupping.html). So a random accident hurt a guy in NORWAY and this shows the dangers of cupping for which there are vacuum powered cups that don't require you to ignite an alcohol soaked cotton ball, it just uses an air pump. To be clear am not defending cupping as a legitimate treatment, just pointing out that your cite uses a misapplication of the process as evidence of its danger.

The reason his being in Norway is significant is that the statistics I cited are only for the US, if we wanted to look up worldwide malpractice statistics it would dwarf the dangers of alternative medicine by orders of magnitude.

Also, keep in mind that I am not at all opposed to scientific medicine. I think if you are sick should go see a Doctor. I'm just pointing out the ineffective claims of the anti-CAM scare cites.

[ivylass]

People want a quick fix.

[Honesty]

Depends on what you classify is alternative medicine. Is it taking soy supplements to alleviate menopausal symptoms? Is it consuming shark fin to cure HIV? Is it the idea that consuming more herbs reduce the risk of cancer?

- Honesty

[fuzzypickles]

Hmm, I fail to comprehend some of the outrage here. Many alternative medicines work just fine. For example, last month I picked up a nasty cough that wouldn't go away, and I couldn't take Robitussin DM because it interacted negatively with the other medications I'm taking. So a friend recommended a honey-based cough syrup called "Chestal", which worked like a charm. And it tastes really sweet, too. ;)

Naturally, one should not eschew modern medicine for serious afflictions (such as cancer) but I see no harm in utilizing alternative treatments in conjuction with traditional ones, especially if the traditional treatments fail to cure the problem.

Because anti-Psychotic drugs come with warnings that the side-effects might make you psychotic.
Hmm, I've heard about anti-depressants making people suicidal (which is actually a sign of the drug taking effect, ironically enough) but haven't heard about anti-psychotics triggering psychosis -- can you elaborate?

[Anne Neville]

Hmm, I fail to comprehend some of the outrage here. Many alternative medicines work just fine. For example, last month I picked up a nasty cough that wouldn't go away, and I couldn't take Robitussin DM because it interacted negatively with the other medications I'm taking. So a friend recommended a honey-based cough syrup called "Chestal", which worked like a charm. And it tastes really sweet, too. ;)

Naturally, one should not eschew modern medicine for serious afflictions (such as cancer) but I see no harm in utilizing alternative treatments in conjuction with traditional ones, especially if the traditional treatments fail to cure the problem.

Assuming you make sure that the alternative treatments are not harmful, and don't interact negatively with other stuff you're taking. A honey-based cough syrup wouldn't be likely to do that, but some herbal medicines might.

[mswas]

Hmm, I fail to comprehend some of the outrage here. Many alternative medicines work just fine. For example, last month I picked up a nasty cough that wouldn't go away, and I couldn't take Robitussin DM because it interacted negatively with the other medications I'm taking. So a friend recommended a honey-based cough syrup called "Chestal", which worked like a charm. And it tastes really sweet, too. ;)

Naturally, one should not eschew modern medicine for serious afflictions (such as cancer) but I see no harm in utilizing alternative treatments in conjuction with traditional ones, especially if the traditional treatments fail to cure the problem.

Right.


Hmm, I've heard about anti-depressants making people suicidal (which is actually a sign of the drug taking effect, ironically enough) but haven't heard about anti-psychotics triggering psychosis -- can you elaborate?

Hmm, I don't remember the names of the drugs. But you can switch it to anti-depressants. My point was simply about drugs designed to ameliorate some symptoms causing those symptoms to be worse, IE, your example of anti-depressants causing people to become suicidal. I don't want to go too far into a digression on anti-psychotics, I am not a Doctor. But here's a link for you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antipsychotic#Side_effects

[hotflungwok]

Fearmongering is an appeal to emotion and doesn't really have a place in the discussion.
Yeah, that was my point. How many times does surgery go just fine, and how many times is a scalpel sewn into the patient? Since you seem to be so against fearmongering, I'm certain that scalpel sewing has a significant chance of happening, but I'd like to get the real numbers to make sure.

It's not just fear mongering, it's genuine fear. Fearmongering implies that there is some sort of greater intentional conspiracy going on, there isn't. Modern medicine with it's consistent, "New study confirms that...", and then two years later, "New study confirms the opposite of old study...", and then two years later, "New study confirms that both of the previous studies were wrong...", and you get to a point of information overload on the part of individuals and they don't know who to trust.
Yeah, that's called science. Discoveries are refined, things change with new discoveries. The point is that there's evidence behind it.

Add to that apocryphal stories from people's friends about some bad experience in a hospital or with a Doctor and you have a climate of distrust.
The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. This is just a lack of critical thinking.

Yes, Chiropractic (not chiropracty) is appropriate for things that fall under its scope of practice, that's tautological.
Fine. The problem here is that Chiropracticy is often promoted as being able to cure just about anything, and that's why it usually gets lumped in with alternative medicine.

As for massage therapy, it's not just for relaxation or minor muscle issues. It's also for lymphatic drainage, there are neuromuscular issues that can be addressed such as referred pain. (See Travell and Simons (http://www.amazon.com/Travell-Simons-Myofascial-Pain-Dysfunction/dp/0683307711/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1249317988&sr=8-1))
Nod, thats all fine. Again, massage and other touch 'therapies' (like Reiki) often promise a lot more than the massage therapist can deliver.

Vitamins and Herbal supplements are different things. A vitamin is the mineral extracted, and herbal supplement is taking the herb unadulterated. And the assumption with herbal supplements is that the person recommending them DOESN'T know something about administering them.
So they should just take whatever and hope it does something? How do you know what herb to take? How do you know how much? How do you know what it does? Do you know how much of an herb is dangerous to take?

This study clearly doesn't make a distinction between how they are used. It doesn't specify whether the herbal supplements are recommended by an MD or not. It clearly is just pulling from total sales of said supplements. As for ginseng and goji smoothies, are you really arguing that I need a Doctor to prescribe a smoothie that will give me a little pick me up in the morning? Should I also have a prescription for Red Bull? Speaking of which, I wonder if sales of Red Bull are counted in that example. I wonder if Guarana drinks fall under their rubric.
If you're medicating yourself with goji smoothies and guarana drinks then I hope you're bothering to consult someone who knows something about it. And by 'something' I mean actual knowledge of effects and interactions and not the just the guy who works the register at the local head shop. Drinking something cuz it tastes good is one thing, drinking it because you heard from a bother's cousin's uncle that it might help your cancer is idiocy, or to put it another way, alternative medicine.

I'll take that and raise you, Hospital care hurts people both directly and indirectly (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/11856.php). So you take your 400,000 deaths and I call and raise you 200,000 deaths PER YEAR.
And how many people were helped by alternative medicine? I don't seem to see any pages for that. How many people use real medicine vs alternative medicine? I'm betting the percentage is skewed just a bit. Alternative medicine doesn't get any leeway on it's death rate until it can be shown to actually help, like real medicine can.

Again, a better definition of alternative medicine needs to be brought into this before you can make such a broad claim. I am certain people have been hurt by swedish massage, but that doesn't mean there is something wrong with the practice itself, just as a Doctor who tells a girl with a malignant tumor that it's just a cyst from her endometriosis doesn't invalidate the work of oncologists.
It depends on context. If the masseuse tells the patient the massage will cure their X, and then the patient doesn't get real help with their X, then the masseuse has done real harm. As long as it's clear that it's just a massage then it's fine.

The problem here is the insufficiently defined nature of alternative medicine. A massage therapist in NY state is legally liable for treating a condition without an MD's recommendation and can lose their license for such a procedure. The problem here is the either/or false dichotomy.
But if the massage therapist doesn't actually say 'I can cure X', but maybe just hints at it, or suggests that maybe it could be helpful, etc. then suddenly this law doesn't apply anymore.

[mswas]

Yeah, that was my point. How many times does surgery go just fine, and how many times is a scalpel sewn into the patient? Since you seem to be so against fearmongering, I'm certain that scalpel sewing has a significant chance of happening, but I'd like to get the real numbers to make sure.

I'm just talking about why people are afraid, not trying to justify their fear. Believe me if I had a malignant tumor, I'd get it cut out by a surgeon.


Yeah, that's called science. Discoveries are refined, things change with new discoveries. The point is that there's evidence behind it.

Yes, but how is the layman supposed to know what's what when it keeps changing all the time?


The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. This is just a lack of critical thinking.

Irrelevant. And 'lack of critical' thinking strikes me as a pat buzzterm and not a sufficient analysis of why people are afraid. Fear is irrational it's an emotion. The bottom line is that the AMA/FDA etc... are accepted by appeals to authority. Critical thinking really matters if you know what you're dealing with. Most of us get medical treatment and base it on faith that the Doctor is right. Bottom line, most of us do not have the knowledge of medicine to judge whether the Doctor actually knows his shit or not. It doesn't matter how critically you think, what matters is your ability to understand medicine, something that people do not understand for the most part.

Fine. The problem here is that Chiropracticy is often promoted as being able to cure just about anything, and that's why it usually gets lumped in with alternative medicine.

Yes, that's unfortunate. Not all chiropractors market it that way though.


Nod, thats all fine. Again, massage and other touch 'therapies' (like Reiki) often promise a lot more than the massage therapist can deliver.

Reiki isn't a touch therapy. You are not supposed to touch someone when administering Reiki.


So they should just take whatever and hope it does something? How do you know what herb to take? How do you know how much? How do you know what it does? Do you know how much of an herb is dangerous to take?

Well some herbal remedies are for simple things. If I feel lethargic I should take some ginseng. Do I need to consult a medical professional to do that or can I just buy a ginseng pill at the deli?


If you're medicating yourself with goji smoothies and guarana drinks then I hope you're bothering to consult someone who knows something about it. And by 'something' I mean actual knowledge of effects and interactions and not the just the guy who works the register at the local head shop. Drinking something cuz it tastes good is one thing, drinking it because you heard from a bother's cousin's uncle that it might help your cancer is idiocy, or to put it another way, alternative medicine.

Well the problem here is with how you are using the word, 'medicate'. Saying that you medicate yourself with goji smoothies and guarana drinks is like saying that someone medicates themselves with a cup of coffee in the morning or a coke at lunch.

So what is the line between self-medication and just drinking something to calm down or get some pep? Like if I drink a glass or two of wine at night to wind down am I self-medicating? For me, I smoke pot on occasion. I don't consider it self-medication as I am not doing it to alleviate symptoms I am doing it to get into a different headspace just like I might drink a beer or smoke a cigar. What makes goji berries different and how can I tell the difference between 'breakfast' and 'self-medication'?


And how many people were helped by alternative medicine? I don't seem to see any pages for that. How many people use real medicine vs alternative medicine? I'm betting the percentage is skewed just a bit. Alternative medicine doesn't get any leeway on it's death rate until it can be shown to actually help, like real medicine can.

Again you're still laboring under a false dichotomy. Much alternative medicine IS real medicine. You can't get a good reading because the statistics simply are not granular enough. Cupping may very well be frou frou bullshit, but saying that someone got burned when the alcohol caught fire is like saying that intravenous injections are bullshit because someone bent a needle once when administering one. The lack of critical thought cuts both ways in this regard. In otherwords the criticisms need to go much more granularly to separate bullshit CAM from the useful CAM. If regular medicine wanted to co-opt the verifiably useful stuff I'd be more than happy to accept that as a solution, but as long as you are lumping homeopathy and swedish massage into the same category it's nearly impossible to come up with any statistical verifiability. CAM is an overly broad category that needs to be cut up. Yea, I think homeopathy is bullshit, but I know that chiropractic and swedish massage are not. No I don't go into the chiropractic can cure asthma school of thought. When it comes to spinal misalignments, my buddy who is a chiropractor, and myself who is a massage therapist can give you permanent relief in some cases, and if not permanent but longer term, and with very few treatments because most spinal misalignments are myo-skeletal and fall within our scopes of practice.


It depends on context. If the masseuse tells the patient the massage will cure their X, and then the patient doesn't get real help with their X, then the masseuse has done real harm. As long as it's clear that it's just a massage then it's fine.

Well a massage can cure a hypertonic Gastrocnemius. 'Just a massage', is meaningless in this context because Massage Therapy CAN cure things. It can treat shin splints for instance.

But if the massage therapist doesn't actually say 'I can cure X', but maybe just hints at it, or suggests that maybe it could be helpful, etc. then suddenly this law doesn't apply anymore.

Well s/he shouldn't be using the word, 'cure', because that would be breach of medical ethics and beyond their scope of practice legally. But that doesn't change the fact that massage therapy really is the solution to many myofascial disorders. There are strict guidelines that a licensed massage therapist must abide by, and one of those is not posing as an MD. You cannot diagnose someone, and pronouncing a cure is as much a diagnosis as telling them what you think their problem is. They need to see a Doctor. A Massage Therapist can say, "Tell your Doctor to look at X.", but the Doctor has to diagnose.

[mswas]

You call it a lack of critical thought, I call it a lack of education of anatomy. I have about 1000 credit hours of Anatomy and Physiology. A good portion of that I believe should've been taught in High School. Certain things are not necessary for people to know. Like you don't need to know that Gluteus Medius attaches to the Greater Trochanter, but you should know what gluteus medius is, where it is and that it attaches to the Femur. You don't need to know normal joint ranges of motion but you should know a ball and socket joint from a hinge joint. A lot of the basic anatomy I didn't get until I went to massage therapy school, and to be honest I think that a lot of the education I got at that school should be mandatory for everyone in High School. People should know where the Sciatic Nerve or the Femoral artery is. They should know what words like idiopathic mean, and what parts of anatomy, such as artery and nerve pathways are idiosyncratic. They should know the direction that feces traverses the colon.

What people don't understand goes beyond critical thinking. It's a matter of a basic knowledge of anatomy that keeps people from understanding things. Personally, I'd require students to learn about hormone production and the endocrine system. They should understand genetics at least well enough to understand how HIV and other virii work by supplanting sections of code in certain cells in order to change their function in order to allow the virus to propagate.

I did get a lot of this in High School but it was insufficient. So it's not just 'critical thinking'. It's a lack of working KNOWLEDGE.

[vivalostwages]

Because anti-Psychotic drugs come with warnings that the side-effects might make you psychotic. Drugs are constantly recalled after they hurt tons of people. Drugs are often too expensive for people to afford. Some Doctors don't even look at their patients when prescribing drugs. Psychiatrists are handing out anti-depressants like they are candy. Surgeons leave scalpels inside of people on occasion. Sometimes people would rather not be cut open.

Then there is the semantic problem. Things that are actually helpful like chiropractic, massage therapy, or taking herbal supplements get caught up in the wide net that is 'alternative' medicine.

And sometimes Valerian root tea is what people need instead of being prescribed Ambien.

Exactly. I will indeed see a doctor if I have a serious problem, really do need surgery, or am doing routine stuff like mammos and such. For lesser issues, I don't have a problem with trying home remedies, herbs, etc., provided that I study them first.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

And sometimes what people need to be educated in critical thinking.

Alternative medicine hurts people (http://whatstheharm.net/index.html), both directly and indirectly.

Critical thinking!

The site linked above includes in its database of death due to herbal therapies this story (http://whatstheharm.net/herbalremedies.html):

Michael Berggren
Age: 55
Hines Creek, Alberta, Canada

Died
December 26, 2006

This veteran trucker lost control of his truck one morning and died in the accident. An investigation found a rare and powerful tranquilizer in his blood. He had been taking an herbal sleep aid that illegally contained the drug. Read more & more

From the links (http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=625923fc-21f3-4ac5-9d6a-48561a6dac59) provided in that paragraph, we learn that the death was caused by trauma resulting from a car accident while Berggren was under the influence of an herbal sedative. Berggren apparently chose the herbal sedative as an alternative to prescription sedative. So the drug he was taking a) apparently worked as it was marketed to work and b) was taken improperly (i.e., at a time when he wasn't supposed to be asleep).

In response to the death, the Canadian government in its wisdom pulled other herbal sedatives marketed as sedatives because, presumably, they determined that they are effective enough as to make them dangerous to take while operating a vehicle. Who knew it was dangerous to take a sedative and drive? I'm curious if they would have done the same thing if Berggren had died under the influence of the prescription sleep aid he declined to take. I highly doubt it.

Critical thinking, indeed.

[mswas]

Brown Eyed Girl Well as they say data is not the plural of anecdote, but so far out of the two links we've cherry picked both of the dangers described result of the improper usage of them and not to people having problems when using them as they are intended. I wonder how many more of those examples are like that.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Upon further review, I see that the herbal remedies were pulled because they contained a drug that was not declared on its packaging. And that the drug involved is known for drug tolerance and dependence as well as a hang-over effect and other side effects.

It's not clear, however, from the report as to what amount of the drug was found in Berggren's system, whether he took it as proscribed, and whether his impairment was the cause of the crash.

[Anne Neville]

Don't think that because an alternative remedy is "natural" or "has been used for thousands of years" that it necessarily works, isn't harmful, doesn't have side effects, or doesn't interact with other medicines (alternative or otherwise). There are natural poisons like oleander. Mercury was used for thousands of years in Chinese and other traditional medicine. Ephedra, which is now banned in the US, was also used in traditional Chinese medicine. I'm taking a (non-alternative) medicine that has warnings on it that it can interact with grapefruit (really), so a grapefruit-based alternative medicine would not work for me.

[mswas]

Don't think that because an alternative remedy is "natural" or "has been used for thousands of years" that it necessarily works, isn't harmful, doesn't have side effects, or doesn't interact with other medicines (alternative or otherwise). There are natural poisons like oleander. Mercury was used for thousands of years in Chinese and other traditional medicine. Ephedra, which is now banned in the US, was also used in traditional Chinese medicine. I'm taking a (non-alternative) medicine that has warnings on it that it can interact with grapefruit (really), so a grapefruit-based alternative medicine would not work for me.

Right, all of that is well and good, but there is an anti-critical hysteria involving alternative medicine where alternative medicine is so overly broad that it involves Yoga and Massage Therapy.

It's important to review the contraindications of medicines that you take for sure.

[buttonjockey308]

Um...you guys do know that there's a capsule that can make a man larger, don't you?

If by "capsule" you mean "cheeseburger" then yes, yes I do.

[Cat Fight]

Don't think that because an alternative remedy is "natural" or "has been used for thousands of years" that it necessarily works, isn't harmful, doesn't have side effects, or doesn't interact with other medicines (alternative or otherwise). There are natural poisons like oleander. Mercury was used for thousands of years in Chinese and other traditional medicine. Ephedra, which is now banned in the US, was also used in traditional Chinese medicine. I'm taking a (non-alternative) medicine that has warnings on it that it can interact with grapefruit (really), so a grapefruit-based alternative medicine would not work for me.

A pretty major interaction that I've heard little about – St. John's Wort can reduce the effectiveness of oral contraceptives. Friend found this out after she took it for depression resulting from the Pill. Pregnancy soon followed. There were no contraindications on the bottle. But then again, there were no warnings from her doc, either (about the depression or taking St. John's Wort, which IMHO is pretty popular).

[hotflungwok]

I'm just talking about why people are afraid, not trying to justify their fear. Believe me if I had a malignant tumor, I'd get it cut out by a surgeon.
Then why did you bring it up? If it isn't a legitimate concern, then the only reason you should bring it up is in the context of lack of critical thinking.

Yes, but how is the layman supposed to know what's what when it keeps changing all the time?
Um, doctors? You know, the people we pay to be medical experts?

Irrelevant. And 'lack of critical' thinking strikes me as a pat buzzterm and not a sufficient analysis of why people are afraid. Fear is irrational it's an emotion.
Yes fear is irrational, but avoiding things you know are bad is not fear. Being afraid of real medicine because you heard about a guy who had a scalpel sewn into him is fear. Avoiding a specific doctor who has had 2 such incidents is critical thinking.

The bottom line is that the AMA/FDA etc... are accepted by appeals to authority. Critical thinking really matters if you know what you're dealing with. Most of us get medical treatment and base it on faith that the Doctor is right. Bottom line, most of us do not have the knowledge of medicine to judge whether the Doctor actually knows his shit or not. It doesn't matter how critically you think, what matters is your ability to understand medicine, something that people do not understand for the most part.
The AMA, CDC, WHO, etc are accepted as authorities because real medicine works. I don't have faith my doctor is right, I trust my doctor and the centuries of work behind her knowledge & training. People don't necessarily need to understand medicine, they need critical thinking. Hearing a few anecdotes and making a decision on them is not critical thinking.

Well some herbal remedies are for simple things. If I feel lethargic I should take some ginseng. Do I need to consult a medical professional to do that or can I just buy a ginseng pill at the deli?
'I feel a little tired' isn't a medical condition. If taking a little ginseng when you feel a little tired is a 'herbal remedy' then most of the people in my office are experts at herbal remedies, especially the kinds they sell at Starbucks. The problem with 'a little tired' is that you can do almost anything and it will go away. It's just something that happens sometimes, and it usually goes away on it's own.

Well the problem here is with how you are using the word, 'medicate'. Saying that you medicate yourself with goji smoothies and guarana drinks is like saying that someone medicates themselves with a cup of coffee in the morning or a coke at lunch.
Exactly. Just because it has a small effect on the body doesn't make it a medicine.

So what is the line between self-medication and just drinking something to calm down or get some pep? Like if I drink a glass or two of wine at night to wind down am I self-medicating? For me, I smoke pot on occasion. I don't consider it self-medication as I am not doing it to alleviate symptoms I am doing it to get into a different headspace just like I might drink a beer or smoke a cigar. What makes goji berries different and how can I tell the difference between 'breakfast' and 'self-medication'?
The intent and the effect. Are you using the goji berries to cure something, or because you like the taste? Are you smoking pot because you have eye cancer, or because you have too many twinkies and need to do something about them? The problem is when you start medicating without expertise. Taking goji berries to cure something without knowing what they really do or how much you can take or how they should be prepared might be dangerous. Or maybe they do nothing and the fact that you're not using real medicine is what's dangerous.

Again you're still laboring under a false dichotomy. Much alternative medicine IS real medicine. You can't get a good reading because the statistics simply are not granular enough. Cupping may very well be frou frou bullshit, but saying that someone got burned when the alcohol caught fire is like saying that intravenous injections are bullshit because someone bent a needle once when administering one.
Nope, not even close. Cupping can be called frou frou bullshit because it's based on frou frou bullshit like chi and making skin release toxins, because it has absolutely no evidence behind it, and because the only thing it seems to do is cause bruises. Picking out one case like that and using it as evidence is like picking up a rock when you're standing in front of a mountain.

The lack of critical thought cuts both ways in this regard. In otherwords the criticisms need to go much more granularly to separate bullshit CAM from the useful CAM. If regular medicine wanted to co-opt the verifiably useful stuff I'd be more than happy to accept that as a solution, but as long as you are lumping homeopathy and swedish massage into the same category it's nearly impossible to come up with any statistical verifiability. CAM is an overly broad category that needs to be cut up. Yea, I think homeopathy is bullshit, but I know that chiropractic and swedish massage are not. No I don't go into the chiropractic can cure asthma school of thought. When it comes to spinal misalignments, my buddy who is a chiropractor, and myself who is a massage therapist can give you permanent relief in some cases, and if not permanent but longer term, and with very few treatments because most spinal misalignments are myo-skeletal and fall within our scopes of practice.
Verifiably usefeul medicine is real medicine. Chiropracticy and massage get lumped into alternative medicine because of all the ridiculous things that get claimed about it. What you're ranting about is alternative medicine hijacking these things to get some credibility. I'm all for Chiropractic when that's all it is, it's real medicine. I'm with you on this, we need to separate these things from the ridiculous claims made about them.

Well a massage can cure a hypertonic Gastrocnemius. 'Just a massage', is meaningless in this context because Massage Therapy CAN cure things. It can treat shin splints for instance.
Yeah, but not all massages are medicinal.

Well s/he shouldn't be using the word, 'cure', because that would be breach of medical ethics and beyond their scope of practice legally. But that doesn't change the fact that massage therapy really is the solution to many myofascial disorders. There are strict guidelines that a licensed massage therapist must abide by, and one of those is not posing as an MD. You cannot diagnose someone, and pronouncing a cure is as much a diagnosis as telling them what you think their problem is. They need to see a Doctor. A Massage Therapist can say, "Tell your Doctor to look at X.", but the Doctor has to diagnose.
Yes that's true. But as long as you don't actually use the wrong keywords, these laws don't apply to you. As long as you put something like 'Not real medicine, in case of emergency go see a real doctor' in little tiny print you can say quite a lot and get away with it. Don't say 'cure', say 'help', and suddenly you can 'help' with cancer and depression and lethargy.

[hotflungwok]

Brown Eyed Girl Well as they say data is not the plural of anecdote, but so far out of the two links we've cherry picked both of the dangers described result of the improper usage of them and not to people having problems when using them as they are intended. I wonder how many more of those examples are like that.
What is a expert in the use of herbal remedies called? Where do they get their education? What certification process is involved? What medical regulations govern their practice?

[mswas]

Then why did you bring it up? If it isn't a legitimate concern, then the only reason you should bring it up is in the context of lack of critical thinking.

Your view of it is overly simplistic. I'm not going to get into uncritical binary false dichotomies again. Life isn't about legitimizing or dismissing people.


Um, doctors? You know, the people we pay to be medical experts?

Right, trust in an authority that some people don't trust.


Yes fear is irrational, but avoiding things you know are bad is not fear. Being afraid of real medicine because you heard about a guy who had a scalpel sewn into him is fear. Avoiding a specific doctor who has had 2 such incidents is critical thinking.

Critical thinking isn't a God.


The AMA, CDC, WHO, etc are accepted as authorities because real medicine works. I don't have faith my doctor is right, I trust my doctor and the centuries of work behind her knowledge & training. People don't necessarily need to understand medicine, they need critical thinking. Hearing a few anecdotes and making a decision on them is not critical thinking.

Well it's already been pointed out why some of these organizations are suspect upthread. The authority of these organizations is not godlike and they are prone to being swayed by moneyed interests.

You use a few anecdotes to debunk alternative medicine as evidenced by your cite which shows a completely contextless number of about 400,000 people hurt by alternative medicine worldwide, as opposed to the in context statistic for 195,000 EVERY YEAR in the United States alone. So if we are talking about what is dangerous, more people die from medical malpractice as it regards allopathic medicine than alternative medicine.

Critical thinking would be a good thing all around I should think, rather than these hysterical anecdotal websites cited as sources.


'I feel a little tired' isn't a medical condition. If taking a little ginseng when you feel a little tired is a 'herbal remedy' then most of the people in my office are experts at herbal remedies, especially the kinds they sell at Starbucks. The problem with 'a little tired' is that you can do almost anything and it will go away. It's just something that happens sometimes, and it usually goes away on it's own.

Being tired doesn't usually go away on its own. The most common way to treat it is to eat or sleep. Second most common is to treat it with over the counter stimulants such as coffee, Coca Cola, Guarana, Ginseng and other such methods.

Exactly. Just because it has a small effect on the body doesn't make it a medicine.

Ok, but the problem with this study is that it is so overbroad as to include Yoga classes as alternative medicine, so how do we know how many of those billions are people buying Ginseng or Goji for pep? Is Yerba Mate or Valerian root tea considered 'self-medication' within the context of the statistics presented in that PDF?


The intent and the effect. Are you using the goji berries to cure something, or because you like the taste? Are you smoking pot because you have eye cancer, or because you have too many twinkies and need to do something about them? The problem is when you start medicating without expertise. Taking goji berries to cure something without knowing what they really do or how much you can take or how they should be prepared might be dangerous. Or maybe they do nothing and the fact that you're not using real medicine is what's dangerous.

Most people don't use Goji berries because they like the taste. Though I am sure some people do like the taste. I think it's ok but am put off by the sulfides they use to cure them myself. I've never had fresh ones. I smoke pot to get high.


Nope, not even close. Cupping can be called frou frou bullshit because it's based on frou frou bullshit like chi and making skin release toxins, because it has absolutely no evidence behind it, and because the only thing it seems to do is cause bruises. Picking out one case like that and using it as evidence is like picking up a rock when you're standing in front of a mountain.

Right, but that's beside the point. The example on your website wasn't an example of cupping hurting someone, it was an example of burning someone with alcohol by accident hurting someone. If you want to be critical you need to address the dangers of the alternative medicine when used AS INTENDED. Cupping in and of itself isn't very dangerous and it's fucking phenomenal when used for a massage. I can legally give you a massage using cupping and it is awesome at releasing myofascial adhesions. So you need to be specific. You can't say, "Cupping has no viable uses.", because that's not true, it does, and in the example cited it was being used by a Doctor (the cite claims it was a Doctor anyway) in order to relieve tension, and he spilled alcohol and burned the patient. That's malpractice.


Verifiably usefeul medicine is real medicine. Chiropracticy and massage get lumped into alternative medicine because of all the ridiculous things that get claimed about it. What you're ranting about is alternative medicine hijacking these things to get some credibility. I'm all for Chiropractic when that's all it is, it's real medicine. I'm with you on this, we need to separate these things from the ridiculous claims made about them.

Right I agree. And my complaints are about the reliability of this study. It's conclusions are overbroad. It doesn't tell us anything useful because it's not granular enough.



Yeah, but not all massages are medicinal.

No, and you don't need a Doctor's permission to get a relaxation massage. If you have a real medical problem that I don't recognize when giving you a relaxation massage and I somehow make your problem worse, I am liable up to a point, but I am somewhat protected from being sued by a pretty hefty insurance policy. My insurance is very inexpensive because it's highly unlikely that I'm going to hurt you.


Yes that's true. But as long as you don't actually use the wrong keywords, these laws don't apply to you. As long as you put something like 'Not real medicine, in case of emergency go see a real doctor' in little tiny print you can say quite a lot and get away with it. Don't say 'cure', say 'help', and suddenly you can 'help' with cancer and depression and lethargy.

No, it's not in tiny print. It needs to be in bold print and made quite clearly. The client needs to understand that I am not a Doctor and I am not capable of making a diagnosis. And I am legally able to help with Cancer, if I have a Doctor's note from the patient. If you come to me and say, "I have Cancer.", I am not legally allowed to give you a massage unless you bring me a Doctor's note. For instance if you have had chemo recently I can release the chemo that is stored in the muscles and fatty tissue, thus possibly messing with your chemo dosage by releasing stored chemo from a prior dosage. If you come in telling me you have cancer I cannot touch you without permission from a Doctor, no exceptions. I can lose my license and open myself up to litigation.

[mswas]

What is a expert in the use of herbal remedies called? Where do they get their education? What certification process is involved? What medical regulations govern their practice?

So if you have a headache and I offer you ibuprofen do I need to be an 'expert'?

Nutritionists can be licensed by the state and they can recommend herbal remedies.

But do I need to be an expert to tell you to try some Valerian root tea to help you relax and sleep more soundly?

[Anne Neville]

But do I need to be an expert to tell you to try some Valerian root tea to help you relax and sleep more soundly?

No, but you do need to exercise some caution, if you're considering valerian root tea for that purpose. Certainly a Google search is called for, to make sure it won't interact with any other medicines you take or make any health conditions worse. Consulting someone whose knowledge about herbal medicines you trust would be a good idea, too. Of course, none of this is a bad idea when you're prescribed a new medicine by a regular doctor, either. They're human, and, as such, don't always catch things like drug interactions.

Don't assume you can take as much of an herbal remedy as you want, or that "if a little is good, a lot must be better". That's just as dangerous with herbal medicines as it is with other medicines.

[Honesty]

Most of our armament of 'real drugs' have been derived from natural sources. You'd probably laugh if someone told you, "The bark of the Pacific Yew Tree contains a molecule that selectively targets and kills breast carcinomas." Though, in reality, its true. Its called Taxol. Soy, for example, contains compounds that binds to the estrogen receptor, thereby alleviating menopausal symptoms in some women. Its called genistein and daidzein.

Ginseng increases the amount of luteinizing hormone (LH) secreted from the hypothalamus. Now, if you know that LH stimulates Leydig cells to produce testosterone, anecdotal reports of men claming to be more 'verile' has a new light of legitimacy. I could go on with citral found in orange peels, naringin found in grapefruit, epigallocatechin gallate found in green tea, salicylic acid from willow bark, nobelitin found in lemon and other citrus fruits, resveratrol from grapes, or caffeine in coffee beans. There are a host of natural compounds isolated from fruits, vegetables, and bark(!) that have biological activity. We just don't talk about them.

People will continue to spend money on alternative medicines as long as prescription medication costs continue to explode. If a poor man is struggling with a growing prostate, it's alot easier to buy saw palmetto than spend a hundred bucks on finasteride.

[Anne Neville]

People will continue to spend money on alternative medicines as long as prescription medication costs continue to explode. If a poor man is struggling with a growing prostate, it's alot easier to buy saw palmetto than spend a hundred bucks on finasteride.

I don't think it's just cost. There are other psychological factors at play, too.

For a problem like impotence, you can't ignore the embarrassment factor. It's embarrassing, at least for some of us, to tell a doctor that you have a problem related to sex.

You'd also expect to see alternative medicines for problems that patients consider more serious than doctors do. If doctors don't provide a remedy for a bothersome condition, or tell patients to just live with it, alternative remedies will spring up.

You'd expect to see alternative medicines for problems where the medical solution is unpalatable, as well. Natural weight-loss products would fit into this category, as would natural hangover remedies. A doctor would tell you to eat or drink less to deal with those problems, and who wants to do that? Much easier and more fun to take an herbal remedy.

[hotflungwok]

Right, trust in an authority that some people don't trust.
And why don't they trust this authority? Is it because we have hard statistical proof that these organizations do more harm than good?

Critical thinking isn't a God.
Um, yes, that's nice, what does this have to do with anything? Oh, and if you're trying to suggest that I place empty belief in critical thinking the way a religious person would place empty belief in their god, then I'd like to see a little proof. Suggesting critical thinking is lacking in a situation in which it is demonstrably lacking is not faith.

Well it's already been pointed out why some of these organizations are suspect upthread. The authority of these organizations is not godlike and they are prone to being swayed by moneyed interests.
The only organization that is godlike is god, and that's solely through believer's fiat. All that was pointed out was that these organizations are composed of humans and humans are not perfect. Yes there are problem, but even with those problems real medicine is still immeasurably preferable to any alternative.

You use a few anecdotes to debunk alternative medicine as evidenced by your cite which shows a completely contextless number of about 400,000 people hurt by alternative medicine worldwide, as opposed to the in context statistic for 195,000 EVERY YEAR in the United States alone. So if we are talking about what is dangerous, more people die from medical malpractice as it regards allopathic medicine than alternative medicine.

Critical thinking would be a good thing all around I should think, rather than these hysterical anecdotal websites cited as sources.
The website I listed does not debunk alternative medicine, nor have I ever said that it does. It exists to show the consequences of using alternative medicine in place of real medicine. If more people die from real medicine than alternative medicine, then why is it still so popular? Could it be that real medicine shows results?

Being tired doesn't usually go away on its own. The most common way to treat it is to eat or sleep. Second most common is to treat it with over the counter stimulants such as coffee, Coca Cola, Guarana, Ginseng and other such methods.
Yes, and?

Ok, but the problem with this study is that it is so overbroad as to include Yoga classes as alternative medicine, so how do we know how many of those billions are people buying Ginseng or Goji for pep? Is Yerba Mate or Valerian root tea considered 'self-medication' within the context of the statistics presented in that PDF?
Yoga is yet another thing that gets pimped out as something that cure any ill. It looks like this study sought to be all inclusive and has things that have some non-alternative uses.

Right, but that's beside the point. The example on your website wasn't an example of cupping hurting someone, it was an example of burning someone with alcohol by accident hurting someone. If you want to be critical you need to address the dangers of the alternative medicine when used AS INTENDED. Cupping in and of itself isn't very dangerous and it's fucking phenomenal when used for a massage. I can legally give you a massage using cupping and it is awesome at releasing myofascial adhesions. So you need to be specific. You can't say, "Cupping has no viable uses.", because that's not true, it does, and in the example cited it was being used by a Doctor (the cite claims it was a Doctor anyway) in order to relieve tension, and he spilled alcohol and burned the patient. That's malpractice.
So bitch to the web site that it has an invalid example. You keep harping on this one thing like it invalidates everything else. Cupping gets used in alternative medicine. People claim it realigns chi and removes toxins from the skin and probably other things. Do you claim these things? Why not? So cupping is yet one more thing that gets hijacked by alternative medicine in an attempt to gain credibility. Just because it does have legitimate uses doesn't mean everything it's used for is legitimate.

Right I agree. And my complaints are about the reliability of this study. It's conclusions are overbroad. It doesn't tell us anything useful because it's not granular enough.
Sure it is overbroad, but it isn't useless. All you would need to make it better is to cut out the portions of the techniques covered that are actually real medicine, and keep the alternative medicines in.

No, it's not in tiny print. It needs to be in bold print and made quite clearly. The client needs to understand that I am not a Doctor and I am not capable of making a diagnosis. And I am legally able to help with Cancer, if I have a Doctor's note from the patient. If you come to me and say, "I have Cancer.", I am not legally allowed to give you a massage unless you bring me a Doctor's note. For instance if you have had chemo recently I can release the chemo that is stored in the muscles and fatty tissue, thus possibly messing with your chemo dosage by releasing stored chemo from a prior dosage. If you come in telling me you have cancer I cannot touch you without permission from a Doctor, no exceptions. I can lose my license and open myself up to litigation.
So tell me, do you help people align their meridians? Help them work through past trauma? Cuz these (http://www.massageforhealing.com/Touch-for-Health.html) people do. Notice the language used on the site. It never says they can cure anything unless it's actually medical, but there's a lot of 'help'. This is one of the first sites that showed up in a quick search. I've seen worse. Here's (http://www.quantumtouch.com/index.php?view=article&catid=187%3Aspecial-topic-reports&id=1034%3Aquantum-touch-and-massage&option=com_content&Itemid=69) another good one, with quantum thrown in for good measure. Once again, no 'I can cure this' but a lot of suggestion. It doesn't seem to be that hard to get around these laws.

[mswas]

Don't assume you can take as much of an herbal remedy as you want, or that "if a little is good, a lot must be better". That's just as dangerous with herbal medicines as it is with other medicines.

Well that's true of any sort of ingestion, from alcohol to cheeseburgers.

[mswas]

And why don't they trust this authority? Is it because we have hard statistical proof that these organizations do more harm than good?

They don't trust it because they are overwhelmed by information and possibly have bad experiences with Doctors. There is also the 'scaremongering' factor, but arguing for it as a singular cause is not reasonable. You're talking about critical thinking, but are getting upset when people don't simply accept an appeal to authority.


Um, yes, that's nice, what does this have to do with anything? Oh, and if you're trying to suggest that I place empty belief in critical thinking the way a religious person would place empty belief in their god, then I'd like to see a little proof. Suggesting critical thinking is lacking in a situation in which it is demonstrably lacking is not faith.

No, I am saying you are repeating it like a mantra as though it's the only relevant part of a complex issue.


The only organization that is godlike is god, and that's solely through believer's fiat. All that was pointed out was that these organizations are composed of humans and humans are not perfect. Yes there are problem, but even with those problems real medicine is still immeasurably preferable to any alternative.

Yes, and some people are willing to trust medicine despite it's flaws and others ar not. The fact that 200,000 people a year die in the US alone due to medical malpractice in hospitals should give one pause before declaring that distrust of the medical establishment is completely baseless and irrational. The fact of the matter is it's not irrational at all. You do a cost-benefit analysis and decide the benefits are worth it, others do the cost-benefit analysis and decide it's not worth it.


The website I listed does not debunk alternative medicine, nor have I ever said that it does. It exists to show the consequences of using alternative medicine in place of real medicine. If more people die from real medicine than alternative medicine, then why is it still so popular? Could it be that real medicine shows results?

Actually it's 100% provable that more people die from using 'real' medicine as opposed to alternative medicine. What's relevant is the proportion that utilize each. It cannot be disputed that in real terms 'real' medicine kills more people per year than alternative remedies.


Yes, and?


Yoga is yet another thing that gets pimped out as something that cure any ill. It looks like this study sought to be all inclusive and has things that have some non-alternative uses.

Ok, but my point of view is that is not granular enough to tell us anything meaningful about the useage of CAM.


So bitch to the web site that it has an invalid example. You keep harping on this one thing like it invalidates everything else. Cupping gets used in alternative medicine. People claim it realigns chi and removes toxins from the skin and probably other things. Do you claim these things? Why not? So cupping is yet one more thing that gets hijacked by alternative medicine in an attempt to gain credibility. Just because it does have legitimate uses doesn't mean everything it's used for is legitimate.

The point is that the cite you gaves us is significantly lacking in rigor. It's just not a very good cite. But cupping isn't hijacked by Chinese Medicine as it's an ancient Chinese art. It just so happens that it is easily provable that cupping reduces myofascial adhesions, because stretching and heating the fascia reduces myofascial adhesions as does pulling the fascia up off of the muscle.


Sure it is overbroad, but it isn't useless. All you would need to make it better is to cut out the portions of the techniques covered that are actually real medicine, and keep the alternative medicines in.

I agree that this would solve a lot of the problems.


So tell me, do you help people align their meridians?

Meridians don't get out of alignment. They get energy blockages. And yes, I can do Shiatsu, but I don't claim that it is western medical treatment when I do it.

Help them work through past trauma? Cuz these (http://www.massageforhealing.com/Touch-for-Health.html) people do. Notice the language used on the site. It never says they can cure anything unless it's actually medical, but there's a lot of 'help'. This is one of the first sites that showed up in a quick search. I've seen worse.

Yes, people often get emotional after a Shiatsu and can work through past trauma. It's a very powerful modality, regardless of your belief in it's efficacy. It's not a myofascial modality and yet it can be very intense. I won't of course defend it based on scientific reasoning because there is no adequate explanation that I have heard for it. It definitely feels very different from Swedish Massage.

Here's (http://www.quantumtouch.com/index.php?view=article&catid=187%3Aspecial-topic-reports&id=1034%3Aquantum-touch-and-massage&option=com_content&Itemid=69) another good one, with quantum thrown in for good measure. Once again, no 'I can cure this' but a lot of suggestion. It doesn't seem to be that hard to get around these laws.

Well yes and no. You can do anything you want as long as your patient doesn't sue you or bring you up on charges with the state ethics board.

[Jackmannii]

Actually it's 100% provable that more people die from using 'real' medicine as opposed to alternative medicine. What's relevant is the proportion that utilize each. It cannot be disputed that in real terms 'real' medicine kills more people per year than alternative remedies.Even if one accepts the estimates/guesses on this subject, the figures are swayed heavily by the numbers and types of patients treated and the forms of treatment employed. Alt med practitioners do not usually care for elderly patients with multisystem organ failure, treat people with acute strokes or myocardial infarctions or care for victims of severe trauma. Handling the care of critically ill patients involves responsibility on a far different plane from giving someone a "toxin flush" or a homeopathic treatment for asthma.

Apart from getting to deal with much sicker patients, physicians utilize vastly different treatments. These differ from alt med remedies because the mainstream therapies a) are typically much more powerful, b) they work, and c) they are accompanied by side effects that may be more severe.

If you have a deadly infection, the antibiotics you receive may very well save your life. Not taking them is likely to result in your death. The antibiotics could damage your liver and give you life-threatening complications, but the alternative is worse. If you take a homeopathic remedy for your skin rash, it's unlikely that it will cause you harm. Water (which is essentially what most homeopathic drugs consist of) is pretty innocuous.

So it's ludicrous to compare outcomes in mainstream and alternative medicine. What usually does not show up in statistics bandied about on the subject is how many people delay effective therapy by using alt med remedies, and how much misery and premature death ensues.

And if you're going to emphasize Death By Medicine vs. Death By Alternative Medicine, consider this: serious injuries or fatalities secondary to properly (or improperly) applied evidence-based care are regrettable. Serious injuries or fatalities due to unproven and nonsensical woo are absolutely intolerable. If your treatment is worthless, your serious injury/death rate should be zero.

Unfortunately in the case of most such therapies, it's not.

[DanBlather]

But do I need to be an expert to tell you to try some Valerian root tea to help you relax and sleep more soundly?If you accept money for providing that advice, then yes. Hell, my hairdresser needs to be licensed. Valerian tea may be safe (I don't know) but I do know that the massive amounts of cinnamon that people tell others to consume can cause liver damage.

[DanBlather]

It's a very powerful modality, regardless of your belief in it's efficacy.Rule number one for judging quackery: use of term "modality". Rule number two: use of work "allopathic". Rule number three: the phrase "treat the symptoms, not the cause".

[mswas]

So it's ludicrous to compare outcomes in mainstream and alternative medicine.

That's the point I was making.

[mswas]

Rule number one for judging quackery: use of term "modality". Rule number two: use of work "allopathic". Rule number three: the phrase "treat the symptoms, not the cause".

Your number one is pointless. A different style of massage is referred to as a 'modality'. That's just the technical term for it, that would be true even if we were talking about Swedish Massage vs Trigger Point therapy, both of which are scientifically based, 'modalities'.

I really could care less what you think about Shiatsu, it feels great and I am perfectly comfortable with considering it an art rather than a science.

[Taenia spp.]

A defense of "alternative medicine" (!)

Disclaimer: I fall decidedly on the scientific side of this debate. I am well acquainted with the principles of pharmacology and do believe that pharmaceuticals are effective.

A couple points to consider, however:

Alternative medicines can be effective. Just because various remedies haven't been scientifically tested does not mean that these alternative treatments aren't effective, nor are pharmaceuticals necessarily so. I know of one (unpublished) study that looks at the various herbal remedies prescribed by herbalists in China for a variety of illnesses, including breast cancer. Preliminary data seems to indicate the components in these preparations can, in fact, help abate the disease. Modern pharmaceuticals take their origins from such "alternative" areas. Because of the long lag time between discovery and development of modern drugs, people may turn to alternative treatments as a bid to help their ailment when pharmaceuticals may not appear to help or do not exist.

Alternative treatments, even those (scientifically) demonstrably ineffective and based on pseudoscience, can be important in the healing process. For a particularly interesting example of this, I refer you to the book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down by Anne Faidman. This real life story describes the intersection of Hmong immigrants and that of the Western medical establishment. Even though chicken sacrificial rituals cannot be effective, in our minds, they are seen as such by the Hmong to banish the evil spirits that cause the diseases. It is shown in this book that when doctors try to press Western medical treatments and pharmaceuticals on people, without compromising or understanding cultural beliefs and treatments, it can have a devastating effect. So yes, while alternative therapies may not have a scientifically demonstrated efficacy, they can be a central component in making the patient believe that he is being treated holistically, increasing patient compliance and ultimately improving health.

Just some considerations for you. Carry on.

[Der Trihs]

A mention of a relevant study : $2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/)

Ten years ago the government set out to test herbal and other alternative health remedies to find the ones that work. After spending $2.5 billion, the disappointing answer seems to be that almost none of them do.

Echinacea for colds. Ginkgo biloba for memory. Glucosamine and chondroitin for arthritis. Black cohosh for menopausal hot flashes. Saw palmetto for prostate problems. Shark cartilage for cancer. All proved no better than dummy pills in big studies funded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The lone exception: ginger capsules may help chemotherapy nausea.

[Jackmannii]

Alternative medicines can be effective. Just because various remedies haven't been scientifically tested does not mean that these alternative treatments aren't effective, nor are pharmaceuticals necessarily so.When alternative remedies are rigorously tested, the great majority prove to be ineffective. For example (as Der Trihs' post shows), the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), run under the auspices of the NIH, has poured hundreds of millions of dollars into research and testing of alt med, with an overwhelming record of failure to demonstrate efficacy. These results have provoked the ire (http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=394) of Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, a noted woo supporter who has expressed his frustration that NCCAM is producing so few positive results (Harkin apparently can't tolerate the fact that science is not supporting his pet theories).I know of one (unpublished) study that looks at the various herbal remedies prescribed by herbalists in China for a variety of illnesses, including breast cancer. Preliminary data seems to indicate the components in these preparations can, in fact, help abate the disease.I await with interest one or more published studies that establish this finding. Oncologists would be delighted to have additional effective treatments in their arsenal.
Alternative treatments, even those (scientifically) demonstrably ineffective and based on pseudoscience, can be important in the healing process. For a particularly interesting example of this, I refer you to the book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down by Anne Faidman.Yes, placebos can have a beneficial effect, though this tends to be for relatively short periods and new placebos have to be pursued (for an interesting take on this, read Bausell's Snake Oil Science, where he gives advice on seeking out the cheapest and safest placebo therapies).

I agree that some things that aren't considered part of typical mainstream medicine (massage therapy, yoga etc.) may benefit certain patients. It does bother me that large sums of money are wasted on outright quackery (i.e. homeopathy, "toxin" flushes, chiropractic for other than musculoskeletal complaints). It's even worse when people are convinced to forego effective, evidence-based treatments in pursuit of phony cures.

I am happy to see increased scrutiny of standard medical treatments to see if they meet evidence-based standards. I think alt med needs to play by the same rules. If people wants placebos, let's make sure they're properly regulated, don't claim more than they can deliver and are overwhelmingly safe and inexpensive. And those who want them can pay the costs themselves.

[mswas]

----

[DanBlather]

That's just the technical term for it, that would be true even if we were talking about Swedish Massage vs Trigger Point therapy, both of which are scientifically based, 'modalities'.And pray tell which branch of science is that?

[Anne Neville]

Well that's true of any sort of ingestion, from alcohol to cheeseburgers.

Yes, but some people seem to think it ought not to be true of medicine, even though it is true of everything else. People who think that herbal medicines are somehow safer than normal medicines might be even more likely to think that they can take as much as they want of an herbal medicine and it won't hurt them.

[TheMadHun]

"Alternative Medicines" are alternative, but not medicine.

They always have a bait and switch rationalization: Aspirin was discovered in willow bark, therefore all plants are medicinal.

[mswas]

And pray tell which branch of science is that?

Medical science.

Sorry couldn't resist, ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_point_therapy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_massage#Swedish_massage

[mswas]

Yes, but some people seem to think it ought not to be true of medicine, even though it is true of everything else. People who think that herbal medicines are somehow safer than normal medicines might be even more likely to think that they can take as much as they want of an herbal medicine and it won't hurt them.

Yes, that is unfortunate.

Personally I think that we make a mistake drawing such a line between food/drug/poison. We should explain more clearly about homeostasis. Rather than training people, "This will nourish you.", "This will affect your body's natural state.", and "This will hurt your body.", we should be teaching kids that homeostasis is a natural balance and that we need certain things, but even the things we need we need in moderation and too much of any substance can change it from nourishment to a poison. A cheeseburger is fine to eat, but if you eat too many it's a slow poison and you get fat and develop all kinds of other problems.

I think that simple lesson in homeostasis would remove some of the mystery from taking drugs, and help people to understand how the body works.

[Anne Neville]

Personally I think that we make a mistake drawing such a line between food/drug/poison.

Some forms of alternative medicine perpetuate this mistake. A lot of the people who talk about purifying "toxins" do this. They seem to think that there are these toxins that are absolutely harmful in any amount, and must be gotten rid of. There are things like that, of course (plutonium would be an example), but most things that you're likely to encounter that can hurt you don't follow that pattern. There are lots of things that are harmless or even beneficial or necessary in small amounts, but harmful in large doses (Vitamin A is one example).

Of course, it's simpler and requires less thinking to think of the world as being divided absolutely between things that are bad for you that you should avoid and things that are good for you that you should seek out, so some people would like to believe it is that way. Some people just don't like nuances and complexity. There's money to be made in selling alternative medicine treatments to these people, so of course some people do it. Of course, people in other fields try to appeal to people who want simple solutions without nuances or complexity, as well- it's hardly confined to alternative medicine.

[mswas]

Some forms of alternative medicine perpetuate this mistake. A lot of the people who talk about purifying "toxins" do this. They seem to think that there are these toxins that are absolutely harmful in any amount, and must be gotten rid of. There are things like that, of course (plutonium would be an example), but most things that you're likely to encounter that can hurt you don't follow that pattern. There are lots of things that are harmless or even beneficial or necessary in small amounts, but harmful in large doses (Vitamin A is one example).

Right, but for alt med to perpetuate this they have to be getting in on a shaky foundation to begin with. It's not up to the alt med people to educate people on the basics of homeostasis to begin with. If they were given a better education about this in school rather than the politicized version of health class we get which vacillated between drugs are bad, have safe-sex, don't have sex at all, it would be easier for people to see the flaws in reasoning. It'd be interesting to go out on the street and ask people what the word, 'homeostasis', means.

Of course, it's simpler and requires less thinking to think of the world as being divided absolutely between things that are bad for you that you should avoid and things that are good for you that you should seek out, so some people would like to believe it is that way. Some people just don't like nuances and complexity. There's money to be made in selling alternative medicine treatments to these people, so of course some people do it. Of course, people in other fields try to appeal to people who want simple solutions without nuances or complexity, as well- it's hardly confined to alternative medicine.

Right, the way it's taught is as an appeal to authority. 'Anything under this line you can take yourself, anything over this line don't take unless a Doctor prescribes them, anything over this second line don't take at all, it's poison.' I'm not sure that it's a natural antipathy to nuances and complexity, I think it's somewhere buried down within the way we educate people. I see false dichotomies on this forum of fairly educated people all the time, no doubt I myself have perpetuated some.

[Cisco]

Ginseng increases the amount of luteinizing hormone (LH) secreted from the hypothalamus. Now, if you know that LH stimulates Leydig cells to produce testosterone, anecdotal reports of men claming to be more 'verile' has a new light of legitimacy.
Are you just throwing this out there as a made up example? Because I don't think this is true.

[mswas]

Are you just throwing this out there as a made up example? Because I don't think this is true.

I'm seeing a couple of studies of the impact of Luteinizing hormone on Leydig cells in rodents, but I'm not going to buy the studies in order to review them.

[Anne Neville]

I'm not sure that it's a natural antipathy to nuances and complexity, I think it's somewhere buried down within the way we educate people. I see false dichotomies on this forum of fairly educated people all the time, no doubt I myself have perpetuated some.

Eh, I think people are lazy. They don't like nuances and complexity because those require thinking. Teachers go along with the kids not liking nuance and complexity when teaching because that's easier to teach. It's much easier to teach your subject as a set of facts that are always entirely true, and to measure who's learned what by asking the students to regurgitate those facts on a test, than it is to teach people to think critically and design a test that measures critical thinking.

[mswas]

Eh, I think people are lazy. They don't like nuances and complexity because those require thinking. Teachers go along with the kids not liking nuance and complexity when teaching because that's easier to teach. It's much easier to teach your subject as a set of facts that are always entirely true, and to measure who's learned what by asking the students to regurgitate those facts on a test, than it is to teach people to think critically and design a test that measures critical thinking.

yeah, I disagree with that assessment. I think that the system with it's emphasis on rote learning doesn't supply the tools required for nuance and complexity. The kids are lazy because they have not been supplied the cognitive tools to make it easier. I don't think the teaching of a set of facts has anything to do with kids being lazy. Kids aren't inherently lazy if they are engaged. They are lazy in school because the way it's presented is boring as hell. I really don't believe it has to do with laziness as much as it has to do with a school curriculum designed to create industrial workers rather than one designed to create free-thinkers.

Though I think compulsory industrial education and free-thinking are contradictory notions.

[hotflungwok]

Right, but for alt med to perpetuate this they have to be getting in on a shaky foundation to begin with. It's not up to the alt med people to educate people on the basics of homeostasis to begin with. If they were given a better education about this in school rather than the politicized version of health class we get which vacillated between drugs are bad, have safe-sex, don't have sex at all, it would be easier for people to see the flaws in reasoning. It'd be interesting to go out on the street and ask people what the word, 'homeostasis', means.
That sounds a little bit like you're advocating for critical thinking.... Wait lemmie read it again. Nope, it does look like you're saying that at least some problems could be avoided with better logic & problem solving education. Wierd.

Right, the way it's taught is as an appeal to authority. 'Anything under this line you can take yourself, anything over this line don't take unless a Doctor prescribes them, anything over this second line don't take at all, it's poison.' I'm not sure that it's a natural antipathy to nuances and complexity, I think it's somewhere buried down within the way we educate people. I see false dichotomies on this forum of fairly educated people all the time, no doubt I myself have perpetuated some.
I don't think this kind of behavior is a false dichotomy. Certain things are more dangerous than others, and regulating them helps prevent accidents. Where to draw the line is just a judgment call. Too high, and ignorant people get hurt. Too low, and you have to see a doctor just to take aspirin.

[mswas]

That sounds a little bit like you're advocating for critical thinking.... Wait lemmie read it again. Nope, it does look like you're saying that at least some problems could be avoided with better logic & problem solving education. Wierd.

Why is that weird?


I don't think this kind of behavior is a false dichotomy. Certain things are more dangerous than others, and regulating them helps prevent accidents. Where to draw the line is just a judgment call. Too high, and ignorant people get hurt. Too low, and you have to see a doctor just to take aspirin.

Yes, but we don't provide them with tools to make a judgment, we teach them to trust in authority, and that's where the problem you were talking about comes in. If they are suddenly to question their faith in authority they are left adrift because the way they were taught to think relied on faith in authority. If they were provided critical thinking skills, as you say, then they could examine authority on its particular merits and make a more informed choice. The uninformed choice comes in when things are split into the categories. "I can take lots of this because it's over the counter and therefore not dangerous.", which could just as easily occur with aspirin or ibuprofen as it could with any exotic herb.

[Honesty]

Are you just throwing this out there as a made up example? Because I don't think this is true.

No. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12817698?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

[Cisco]

No. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12817698?ordinalpos=4&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)
That's in rats. I've never seen a human study that showed any significant results whatsoever from ginseng.

[hotflungwok]

Why is that weird?
Oh, no reason.

Yes, but we don't provide them with tools to make a judgment, we teach them to trust in authority, and that's where the problem you were talking about comes in. If they are suddenly to question their faith in authority they are left adrift because the way they were taught to think relied on faith in authority. If they were provided critical thinking skills, as you say, then they could examine authority on its particular merits and make a more informed choice. The uninformed choice comes in when things are split into the categories.
But the problem is that the training required is not trivial, and expecting an average person to go through it just so they don't have to rely on authority is ridiculous.

"I can take lots of this because it's over the counter and therefore not dangerous.", which could just as easily occur with aspirin or ibuprofen as it could with any exotic herb.
First, that 'logic' is one of the things could benefit from a little critical thinking. But the problem is that exotic herbs have very little in the way of regulation. People know that regulated drugs can be dangerous just because of the way they're regulated. Thinking that because they're not regulated that they're not dangerous is ignorant. But the few herbs that are regulated are done so for political reasons. With no real authority to say 'this is good, this is bad' you get 'Its natural, it must be good' kind of thinking. There's a lot of misinformation out there that isn't getting checked cuz there's very little in the way of authority. I'm using authority here to mean 'expert' and not 'lawmaker'.

[Honesty]

That's in rats. I've never seen a human study that showed any significant results whatsoever from ginseng.

Of course it's in rats. Do you think the NIH funds studies in humans that haven't been tested in rats? The United States proportedly stopped that with the Tuskegee Experiments. The very reason we use rats as experimental models because, phyisologically, they are not that divergent from humans. You isolate insulin from a rat pancreas and it'll lower your blood sugar - no joke.

The point in highlighting that study was to show that men claiming to be more virile after ginseng, warrants further investigation rather than dismissing it as alternative medicine. Why? Because there is scientific evidence that it increases, by proxy, testosterone production in another species that possesses remarkable similarity with humans.

- Honesty

[mswas]

But the problem is that the training required is not trivial, and expecting an average person to go through it just so they don't have to rely on authority is ridiculous.

I am talking about basic anatomy and comprehension of homeostasis, not a medical degree.


First, that 'logic' is one of the things could benefit from a little critical thinking. But the problem is that exotic herbs have very little in the way of regulation. People know that regulated drugs can be dangerous just because of the way they're regulated. Thinking that because they're not regulated that they're not dangerous is ignorant. But the few herbs that are regulated are done so for political reasons. With no real authority to say 'this is good, this is bad' you get 'Its natural, it must be good' kind of thinking. There's a lot of misinformation out there that isn't getting checked cuz there's very little in the way of authority. I'm using authority here to mean 'expert' and not 'lawmaker'.

Right, I am using 'authority' in the same manner. I agree with you that there isn't much in the way of authority for herbs, though I personally would be a bigger fan of allowing people the freedom to choose what they want to use as opposed to having to mediate what we ingest via experts. There has to be some way to create a balance of information and usage as opposed to just restricting usage via paternalistic regulation.

[DanBlather]

Medical science.

Sorry couldn't resist, ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigger_point_therapy

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_massage#Swedish_massage
Neither of those cites say those types of massage are "scientifically based, 'modalities'". They just say that massage can be effective to relieve pain. Trying to make yourself out as a 'scientist' is kinda sad. Food reduces hunger, but my mac and cheese is not "a scientifically based 'modality'".

[mswas]

Neither of those cites say those types of massage are "scientifically based, 'modalities'". They just say that massage can be effective to relieve pain. Trying to make yourself out as a 'scientist' is kinda sad. Food reduces hunger, but my mac and cheese is not "a scientifically based 'modality'".

Your ignorance on the subject doesn't count as a compelling argument. Trigger Point Therapy was developed by two MDs, one of whom happened to be JFK's personal physician. It involves using digital pressure to reduce myofascial adhesions and deals with pain referrals along neurological pathways.

Swedish Massage is based entirely in myofascial manipulation and involves stimulating blood flow, reducing myofascial adhesions and use neurological reflexes to relax muscles.

If you are going to be very sarcastic and dismissive, at least try to know thing one about about the subject before you spout off. It's quite clear that you know nothing about either modality.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Neither of those cites say those types of massage are "scientifically based, 'modalities'". They just say that massage can be effective to relieve pain. Trying to make yourself out as a 'scientist' is kinda sad. Food reduces hunger, but my mac and cheese is not "a scientifically based 'modality'".

*sigh* Modality as used in medicine. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modality#Medicine) I guess you'd be saying medical imaging, psychotherapy and every other therapeutic treatment referred to as a 'modality' is alternative medicine then, eh?

Oh wait, there's more:

Modality, as defined in the FreeDictionary.com (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/modality):
5. Medicine A therapeutic method or agent, such as surgery, chemotherapy, or electrotherapy, that involves the physical treatment of a disorder.

So, add surgery, chemo, and electrotherapy to the list of frou-frou medicine.

[bri1600bv]

Well what is an "alternative medicine"?

Grape seed extract for example, is that alternative? My dad's angina went away after taking this regularly. I know anecdotal.

How about Omega-3 fatty acids? They have been shown to have medicinal value ("cite!?")...are those considered alternative?

I mean you have to separate the pure quackery from the legitimate or even semi-legitimate, don't you?

[mswas]

Good work Brown Eyed Girl!

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Good work Brown Eyed Girl!

Yes, my Wikipedia skillz are legendary... ;)

[Cisco]

Of course it's in rats. Do you think the NIH funds studies in humans that haven't been tested in rats? The United States proportedly stopped that with the Tuskegee Experiments. The very reason we use rats as experimental models because, phyisologically, they are not that divergent from humans. You isolate insulin from a rat pancreas and it'll lower your blood sugar - no joke.

The point in highlighting that study was to show that men claiming to be more virile after ginseng, warrants further investigation rather than dismissing it as alternative medicine. Why? Because there is scientific evidence that it increases, by proxy, testosterone production in another species that possesses remarkable similarity with humans.

- Honesty

But there have been human studies on ginseng. And, to my knowledge, they haven't produced any results to get excited about. I'd love to be proven wrong, because I've heard great things about ginseng anecdotally, but I'm not buying it at this point.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Rule number one for judging quackery: use of term "modality". Rule number two: use of work "allopathic". Rule number three: the phrase "treat the symptoms, not the cause".

You know, the sheer idiocy of Rule number one caused me to miss rule number two. DanBlather, allopathic medicine is synonymous with conventional medicine or Western medicine or modern medicine. Allopathic medicine is what M.D.s practice, as opposed to what D.O.s practice: osteopathic medicine.

Were you thinking of the term, homeopathic, perhaps?

As far as "treating symptoms, not the cause" tell me how your doctor treats your seasonal allergies? How does s/he treat Parkinson's? It's not unheard of in the medical establishment to focus on therapeutic measures, when cures are unavailable or impractical.

[Der Trihs]

You know, the sheer idiocy of Rule number one caused me to miss rule number two. DanBlather, allopathic medicine is synonymous with conventional medicine or Western medicine or modern medicine. Allopathic medicine is what M.D.s practice, as opposed to what D.O.s practice: osteopathic medicine.

Were you thinking of the term, homeopathic, perhaps?"Allopathic medicine" is a term invented by the founder of homeopathy. Generally when someone uses the term it's because they are a quack or a defender of quacks.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

"Allopathic medicine" is a term invented by the founder of homeopathy. Generally when someone uses the term it's because they are a quack or a defender of quacks.

Someone needs to inform Dartmouth College of Medicine (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~csrc/students/gradschool/med/allopathic.html) and the Princeton Review (http://www.princetonreview.com/medical/allopathic.aspx) then. And the Association of American Medical Colleges (http://www.aamc.org/students/eras/usemyeras/programs.htm#allo). Oh, and maybe the U.S. Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm), too.

What a bunch of quacks!

[Jackmannii]

Someone needs to inform Dartmouth College of Medicine (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~csrc/students/gradschool/med/allopathic.html) and the Princeton Review (http://www.princetonreview.com/medical/allopathic.aspx) then. And the Association of American Medical Colleges (http://www.aamc.org/students/eras/usemyeras/programs.htm#allo). Oh, and maybe the U.S. Department of Labor (http://www.bls.gov/oco/ocos074.htm), too.

What a bunch of quacks!Der Trihs is correct here - mainstream medicine generally does not use the term "allopathic". - When you hear alt med advocates going on about "allopathic" doctors it's always in a pejorative sense. There's considerable confusion in the alt med community about the word as well - it was originally coined by Hahnemann in 1842 to indicate conventional medical practice which used remedies creating effects opposite to those produced by disease (as opposed to homeopathy, which claims to alleviate disease by giving the patient a minute amount of a drug that causes the same symptoms from which he/she suffers). Much of alt med is therefore allopathic. For instance, herbalism tries to relieve symptoms through herbs that counter the effects of disease, though supporters are fond of explanations like "restores homeostasis".

DanBlather's "rules" for judging quackery are at least two-thirds accurate. "Modality" is not necessarily a word used by quacks, but "treat the symptoms, not the cause" is a typical allegation used against mainstream physicians by supporters of woo. We're supposed to believe that whatever brand of woo they utilize actually gets to the Root Cause Of All Disease (as mentioned earlier, this could be anything from parasites to "toxins"), while physicians are merely treating surface symptoms.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

Der Trihs is correct here - mainstream medicine generally does not use the term "allopathic".

News to me.

[mswas]

Der Trihs is correct here - mainstream medicine generally does not use the term "allopathic". - When you hear alt med advocates going on about "allopathic" doctors it's always in a pejorative sense.

This is incorrect. In my massage therapy program they used the term extensively, and the instructors hardly held 'allopathic' medicine in contempt. You guys are just dealing with a stereotype that isn't valid. You're assuming a point of view that just isn't accurate about people you have deemed to be your opponents. Generally it was used to differentiate 'western' IE science based medicine from eastern.

There's considerable confusion in the alt med community about the word as well - it was originally coined by Hahnemann in 1842 to indicate conventional medical practice which used remedies creating effects opposite to those produced by disease (as opposed to homeopathy, which claims to alleviate disease by giving the patient a minute amount of a drug that causes the same symptoms from which he/she suffers). Much of alt med is therefore allopathic. For instance, herbalism tries to relieve symptoms through herbs that counter the effects of disease, though supporters are fond of explanations like "restores homeostasis".

That's interesting to know, thanks.

DanBlather's "rules" for judging quackery are at least two-thirds accurate. "Modality" is not necessarily a word used by quacks, but "treat the symptoms, not the cause" is a typical allegation used against mainstream physicians by supporters of woo. We're supposed to believe that whatever brand of woo they utilize actually gets to the Root Cause Of All Disease (as mentioned earlier, this could be anything from parasites to "toxins"), while physicians are merely treating surface symptoms.

Again, this is such a vague and unsophisticated stereotype that assumes some sort of commonality of belief amongst millions of people. The same sort of uncritical analysis that led us to the nearly useless CDC report in the OP. One of the criticisms is that western medicine always looks for a singular cause for a particular malady. IE, the mechanic view of the body, that the body is made up of interchangeable parts that if you simple repair or replace the broken piece the problem is solved. There is some legitimacy to the criticism despite where some people might take it.

Brown Eyed Girl Of course they don't use allopathic medicine, they just use the term, 'medicine', because their view of medicine is of course the only correct one. I wouldn't mind this point of view if they would be a little more critical of their own views of alt med and try and look at things more granularly. Instead of saying incorrect statements like, "Alt med is quackery.", they said, "Homeopathy is quackery."

[Slanky]

Of course it's in rats. Do you think the NIH funds studies in humans that haven't been tested in rats? The United States proportedly stopped that with the Tuskegee Experiments. The very reason we use rats as experimental models because, phyisologically, they are not that divergent from humans. You isolate insulin from a rat pancreas and it'll lower your blood sugar - no joke.

The point in highlighting that study was to show that men claiming to be more virile after ginseng, warrants further investigation rather than dismissing it as alternative medicine. Why? Because there is scientific evidence that it increases, by proxy, testosterone production in another species that possesses remarkable similarity with humans.

- Honesty

This study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9761217)directly contradicts that other study on the LH and testosterone point while coming from a "more reputable" journal though it does mention other effects. Furthermore, many of the studies coming out of China on traditional medicine are quite biased, poorly designed, and not held to rigorous standards. Just something to keep in mind.

[DanBlather]

From Wiki:
Allopathic medicine and allopathy (from Greek ἄλλος, állos, other, different + πάϑος, páthos, suffering) are terms coined by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy. It meant "other than the disease" and it was intended, among other things, to point out how traditional doctors used methods that had nothing to do with the symptoms created with the disease, which meant that these methods were harmful to the patients. Originally intended as a characterization of standard medicine in the early 19th century, these terms were rejected by mainstream physicians and quickly acquired negative overtones. During the 19th century it was used widely among irregular doctors as a pejorative term for regular doctors. In the United States the term "allopathic" has been used by persons not related to homeopathy, but it has never been accepted by the medical establishment, and is not a label that such individuals apply to themselves.

[Jackmannii]

This is incorrect. In my massage therapy program they used the term extensively, and the instructors hardly held 'allopathic' medicine in contempt. You guys are just dealing with a stereotype that isn't valid. You're assuming a point of view that just isn't accurate about people you have deemed to be your opponents.Sorry, but I've seen "allopathic" used as a term of derision by alt med proponents for many years. Here's an example from whale.to (http://www.whale.to/a/allopathy_h.html), one of the most popular alt med websites.

"Allopathic Medicine is mostly based around patentable drugs (pharmaceutical medicine), with radiation and surgery. Administered by the 'Medical Profession' who are all medical doctors. These medical doctors that will only use the drug company products are called Allopaths, as opposed to the ones who use alternative medicine (non-Allopathic), such as nutrients. It is run by the Medical Mafia. One of the best kept secrets is the Allopathic medical monopoly. The merger of State with Corporate power is called Fascism, so this is medical Fascism."

The National Council Against Health Fraud (http://www.ncahf.org/articles/a-b/allopathy.html) has noted the reasons behind use of the "allopathic" label:

"Although medicine never accepted the label of allopathy, nonmedical practitioners such as chiropractors, homeopaths, and naturopaths regularly misrepresent physicians as "allopaths." This is usually done in order to make differences between their practice guilds appear based upon conflicting philosophies rather than ideology versus science. Opponents of medicine claim that they treat the underlying causes of disease, while MDs treat only the symptoms. Further, they claim that medicine suppresses the symptoms, thus interfering with the body's inherent healing processes. A close examination reveals that this line of reasoning is only clever rhetoric. When they say the are treating the underlying causes, these vitalistic ideologists refer to a metaphysical life force rather than actual causes of disease such as viruses, bacteria, protozoa, genetic defects, radiation, chemical insult, and so forth."
One of the criticisms is that western medicine always looks for a singular cause for a particular malady. IE, the mechanic view of the body, that the body is made up of interchangeable parts that if you simple repair or replace the broken piece the problem is solved. There is some legitimacy to the criticism despite where some people might take it.This is mostly nonsense, but it appeals to those who claim they have invented cures through remedying Underlying Causes. The reality is far different. For example, mainstream medicine will work to save you if you have a myocardial infarction or provide drugs or surgery to relieve the pain of angina. It will also promote proper diet and cholesterol-lowering drugs to help prevent these problems from arising in the first place. Brown Eyed Girl Of course they don't use allopathic medicine, they just use the term, 'medicine', because their view of medicine is of course the only correct one.Do you realize you've just contradicted the claim earlier in your post that "allopathy" is a term commonly used in the medical community? Either we routinely employ the term or we don't; please make up your mind.

Incidentally I have not said that all alt med is quackery. Large segments of it do qualify as quackery, and scamsters have a field day - largely because of the unwillingness of alt med to follow evidence-based guidelines, and a response to criticism that depends heavily on tu quoque bashing of mainstream medicine.

[mswas]

Sorry, but I've seen "allopathic" used as a term of derision by alt med proponents for many years. Here's an example from whale.to (http://www.whale.to/a/allopathy_h.html), one of the most popular alt med websites.

Yes, but there are different flavors of alt-med proponents. There are those who are antagonistic to 'allopathic' medicine, and those who are not. The latter category happens to be the vast majority. There are serious problems with our medical establishment, but that doesn't mean that those of us who see other methods are opposed to the mainstream point of view. My training in an 'alt-med' modality was HIGHLY sympathetic to the mainstream view. Sure, it had some woo elements but they were kept separate and distinct and they were also overshadowed by the scientific approach.

"Allopathic Medicine is mostly based around patentable drugs (pharmaceutical medicine), with radiation and surgery. Administered by the 'Medical Profession' who are all medical doctors. These medical doctors that will only use the drug company products are called Allopaths, as opposed to the ones who use alternative medicine (non-Allopathic), such as nutrients. It is run by the Medical Mafia. One of the best kept secrets is the Allopathic medical monopoly. The merger of State with Corporate power is called Fascism, so this is medical Fascism."

*shrugs* You're a Democrat right? So you must believe that Bush was behind 9/11. (Or if you're a Republican you must think Obama was born in Kenya.)

The National Council Against Health Fraud (http://www.ncahf.org/articles/a-b/allopathy.html) has noted the reasons behind use of the "allopathic" label:

"Although medicine never accepted the label of allopathy, nonmedical practitioners such as chiropractors, homeopaths, and naturopaths regularly misrepresent physicians as "allopaths." This is usually done in order to make differences between their practice guilds appear based upon conflicting philosophies rather than ideology versus science. Opponents of medicine claim that they treat the underlying causes of disease, while MDs treat only the symptoms. Further, they claim that medicine suppresses the symptoms, thus interfering with the body's inherent healing processes. A close examination reveals that this line of reasoning is only clever rhetoric. When they say the are treating the underlying causes, these vitalistic ideologists refer to a metaphysical life force rather than actual causes of disease such as viruses, bacteria, protozoa, genetic defects, radiation, chemical insult, and so forth."
This is mostly nonsense, but it appeals to those who claim they have invented cures through remedying Underlying Causes. The reality is far different. For example, mainstream medicine will work to save you if you have a myocardial infarction or provide drugs or surgery to relieve the pain of angina. It will also promote proper diet and cholesterol-lowering drugs to help prevent these problems from arising in the first place. Do you realize you've just contradicted the claim earlier in your post that "allopathy" is a term commonly used in the medical community? Either we routinely employ the term or we don't; please make up your mind.

Fair enough, but there are a lot of people who use the term, 'allopathy', as a form of differentiation. To most of them it means, 'Mainstream Medicine'. I'll definitely refrain from using it in the future. That's why I've been trying to use the term, "Scientific Medicine."

Incidentally I have not said that all alt med is quackery. Large segments of it do qualify as quackery, and scamsters have a field day - largely because of the unwillingness of alt med to follow evidence-based guidelines, and a response to criticism that depends heavily on tu quoque bashing of mainstream medicine.

Of course large segments are, because it is a catch-all term for everything that is not in the mainstream, and that is true for every category that is all-encompassing everything that is not accepted by the mainstream, as it always and ever will be. Well, if people who were defending mainstream medicine tried to be more granular in their approach and separate the non-quackery from the quackery then it wouldn't be so contentious. Personally I hate that Chiropractic and Massage Therapy are labelled as alt-med because it's misleading. Both in their empirical form (IE not being considered a panacea for all ills) are incredibly helpful. One of the biggest problems people have with mainstream medicine is it's lack of a wellness continuum. Mainstream medicine treats people who are sick, but it doesn't have much in the way of wellness care. Most wellness care falls under the rubric of alt-med, which is semantically unfortunate for our society. If wellness care like chiro, massage, and yoga were embraced by the medical community we'd have a less contentious political environment. To be fair lots of MDs are perfectly copacetic with these wellness programs and even prescribe them to their patients, it's just that the overall semantic space is still dominated by this dichotomy of alt-med and mainstream med. A lot of alt-med is total bullshit, but unfortunately the stuff that isn't gets lumped in with it.

[DanBlather]

One of the biggest problems people have with mainstream medicine is it's lack of a wellness continuum. Mainstream medicine treats people who are sick, but it doesn't have much in the way of wellness care. Most wellness care falls under the rubric of alt-med, which is semantically unfortunate for our society. If wellness care like chiro, massage, and yoga were embraced by the medical community we'd have a less contentious political environment. To be fair lots of MDs are perfectly copacetic with these wellness programs and even prescribe them to their patients, it's just that the overall semantic space is still dominated by this dichotomy of alt-med and mainstream med. A lot of alt-med is total bullshit, but unfortunately the stuff that isn't gets lumped in with it.People might take you more seriously if you didn't use terms like "overall semantic space is still dominated by this dichotomy", but that aside, I have my main stream doctor talks with me all the time about excercise, diet, sleeping well, and even recommended using a neti pot. My friends have had their mainstream doctors talk with them about the benefits of yoga for flexibility. My doctor always looks for a simple fix before prescribing a drug, and when he does prescribe drugs he looks for the cheaper alternatives. I don't know why there is such an utter contempt for mainstream medicine, but I suspect it is so that people will be willing to pay for highly questionable treatments like Chiropracty that somehow need to go on forever. I have also never had a doctor prescribe a drug to me and then sell it to me himself, but this sort of thing goes on all the time in the fringe arts of medicine. I think it's shameful, and it is enabled by the strange bedfellows of the right (e.g., Orinn Hatch) and the woo-woo anti-science left.

[elelle]

What is a expert in the use of herbal remedies called? Where do they get their education? What certification process is involved? What medical regulations govern their practice?

I'll speak to this a bit: The American Herbalist Guild has been trying to establish (http://www.americanherbalistsguild.com/herbal_education) education guidelines and certification procedure. I see that they have dropped their official certification process for now, and don't know the particulars of that decision. I see them as being a very reputable organization, trying to get some cohesion and reputable herbal standards.

The current president, Aviva Romm, is an experienced midwife and herbalist, who just completed her MD at Yale this year. I expect that she will help to bridge the gap in knowledge that certainly needs it.

One of the oldest Western herbalist associations is the UK's National Institute of Medical Herbalists (http://www.nimh.org.uk/about-the-nimh/training-and-accreditation/becoming-a-medical-herbalist). The first wave of clinically trained herbalists from the UK programs in the 80's have been practicing and teaching in the US for a good decade.

US schools that offer, to my mind, a good education in medical herbalism are: Bastyr University (http://www.bastyr.edu/education/herbal/degree/training.asp), Tai Sophia Institute (http://www.tai.edu/GradHerbalMedicine.aspx), and Southwest School of Naturopathic Medicine (http://www.scnm.edu/program-of-study.html), which has a good curriculum in botanical medicine.

If decent campus alternative med programs aren't to taste, here in NC, Duke University (http://www.dukeintegrativemedicine.org/), as well as many other reputable schools, is delving into what's well-termed as integrative medicine. Glad to see it.

[DanBlather]

MSWAS my last post was inexcusably snarky and I apologize.

My sister is caught up in some really fringe medical stuff that makes me very sensitive on this subject, but that is no excuse for my tone.

[mswas]

People might take you more seriously if you didn't use terms like "overall semantic space is still dominated by this dichotomy", but that aside, I have my main stream doctor talks with me all the time about excercise, diet, sleeping well, and even recommended using a neti pot.

I'm not particularly concerned about people taking me seriously. Least of all you with your obsession with weird semantic nitpicks. You picked your name well.


My friends have had their mainstream doctors talk with them about the benefits of yoga for flexibility. My doctor always looks for a simple fix before prescribing a drug, and when he does prescribe drugs he looks for the cheaper alternatives.

I said pretty much this in the post you responded to directly.

I don't know why there is such an utter contempt for mainstream medicine, but I suspect it is so that people will be willing to pay for highly questionable treatments like Chiropracty that somehow need to go on forever. I have also never had a doctor prescribe a drug to me and then sell it to me himself, but this sort of thing goes on all the time in the fringe arts of medicine. I think it's shameful, and it is enabled by the strange bedfellows of the right (e.g., Orinn Hatch) and the woo-woo anti-science left.

Who considers chiropractic questionable? I think you're making shit up here dude. Mostly the people who think chiropractic is questionable are the counterparts of the people they are making fun of. I doubt you could find a single Doctor that would dispute that spinal misalignments aren't a serious issue and that they cannot be treated in some cases with manual adjustments. Not all chiropractors claim to cure asthma.

But I guess you have the same problem with Dentists seeing as their treatments go on forever too.

Maybe people would take you more seriously if you actually knew something at all about the modalities your dismissing. Or the proper semantic usage of the words you use to make fun of people while bringing nothing to the table yourself.

[mswas]

MSWAS my last post was inexcusably snarky and I apologize.

My sister is caught up in some really fringe medical stuff that makes me very sensitive on this subject, but that is no excuse for my tone.

Ok, I didn't see this before posting, then I apologize for my snark in response to your snark. ;)

I can understand that concern.

[Brown Eyed Girl]

From Wiki:
Allopathic medicine and allopathy (from Greek ἄλλος, állos, other, different + πάϑος, páthos, suffering) are terms coined by Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy. It meant "other than the disease" and it was intended, among other things, to point out how traditional doctors used methods that had nothing to do with the symptoms created with the disease, which meant that these methods were harmful to the patients. Originally intended as a characterization of standard medicine in the early 19th century, these terms were rejected by mainstream physicians and quickly acquired negative overtones. During the 19th century it was used widely among irregular doctors as a pejorative term for regular doctors. In the United States the term "allopathic" has been used by persons not related to homeopathy, but it has never been accepted by the medical establishment, and is not a label that such individuals apply to themselves.

I saw that, too, and the statement you underlined is directly contradicted by the links I posted of reputable medical organizations and related medical school publications, as well as the U.S. government using the term in a non-pejorative manner. In fact, as I pointed out, the term is used to differentiate between two different types of medical doctor: the allopath (or M.D.) and the osteopath (D.O.).

If the term is being used pejoratively, it's not because the term itself is pejorative (it's merely descriptive), but the intent behind it is to ridicule the technique, in the same manner that alternative medicine is sometimes referred to in a pejorative sense, when in fact, there are quite a few mainstream medical organizations take at least some alternative therapies seriously. The example elelle gave illustrates this.

[Jackmannii]

Yes, but there are different flavors of alt-med proponents. There are those who are antagonistic to 'allopathic' medicine, and those who are not. The latter category happens to be the vast majority.I don't know where you get the idea that the "vast majority" of alt med advocates are congenial towards mainstream medicine. Beyond the highly popular alt med websites like whale.to and curezone.com, check out the publications and websites of individual practitioners (i.e. naturopaths, herbalists, chiropractors et al). There is a great deal of hostility and mischaracterization of "allopathic" medicine. One of the biggest problems people have with mainstream medicine is it's lack of a wellness continuum. Mainstream medicine treats people who are sick, but it doesn't have much in the way of wellness care. Most wellness care falls under the rubric of alt-med, which is semantically unfortunate for our society. More classic woo-speak. Alties have tried to appropriate this segment of care for their own, but their claims don't withstand scrutiny. "Wellness" care, from diet and exercise to vaccinations and interventions for high blood pressure and elevated blood lipids (designed to reduce them before they result in heart attacks and strokes) are fundamental to mainstream care.Who considers chiropractic questionable? I think you're making shit up here dude. Mostly the people who think chiropractic is questionable are the counterparts of the people they are making fun of. I doubt you could find a single Doctor that would dispute that spinal misalignments aren't a serious issue and that they cannot be treated in some cases with manual adjustments.Oh dear god.

You would in reality be hard pressed to find physicians who believe in the chiropractor theory of spinal "subluxations" (http://www.chirobase.org/01General/chirosub.html) that supposedly can be relieved by adjustments. Even some chiropractors (a small minority, unfortunately) concede that these mystery subluxations (which can't be demonstrated on imaging studies or by other (sorry) modalities are a figment of the imagination of Daniel Palmer and the chiros who still believe in his pronouncements. What you will find is a number of physicians who think chiropractic has a credible role in alleviating certain musculoskeletal complaints (once they've been properly diagnosed), though not superior to other hands-on care like physical therapy and massage.

The bottom line is that alt med (and make no mistake, a high percentage of believers view it as "alternative" and not "complementary" to mainstream medicine) has serious problems when it tries to view itself as not only superior to mainstream care but exempt from the rules that define efficacy and safety. The responses seen in this thread (including tu quoque attacks against the "establishment" and reliance on testimonials) illustrate the mindsets that keep alternative medicine from gaining respect.

[hotflungwok]

I am talking about basic anatomy and comprehension of homeostasis, not a medical degree.
How is basic knowledge of anatomy and homeostasis going to keep someone from overdosing on the herb Foxglove?

Right, I am using 'authority' in the same manner. I agree with you that there isn't much in the way of authority for herbs, though I personally would be a bigger fan of allowing people the freedom to choose what they want to use as opposed to having to mediate what we ingest via experts.
Well, that's good too. Thinning the herd a bit should warn the others.

There has to be some way to create a balance of information and usage as opposed to just restricting usage via paternalistic regulation.
There has to be information first. How much of what's sold on shelves as 'herbs' has actually been properly studied?

Not all regulation is paternalistic, and not all paternalistic regulation is bad.

[Honesty]

This study (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9761217)directly contradicts that other study on the LH and testosterone point while coming from a "more reputable" journal though it does mention other effects. Furthermore, many of the studies coming out of China on traditional medicine are quite biased, poorly designed, and not held to rigorous standards. Just something to keep in mind.

True. But keep in mind that the study you have cited is over a decade old and uses extract. The study I've cited has purified extract to get the pharmacologically active compound, Ginsenoside, which the authors contend (and show) has biological activity in the rat.

I do agree with you that American journals are far superior to Chinese ones, but the lack of American research mirrors the prorities of the NIH - which, oddly, enough, is getting quite horny about longevity research rather than nutraceuticals.


- Honesty

[mswas]

How is basic knowledge of anatomy and homeostasis going to keep someone from overdosing on the herb Foxglove?

Well if they understood that it's not medicine it's the dosage, then maybe they wouldn't get the idea that more is better.


Well, that's good too. Thinning the herd a bit should warn the others.

Heh.


There has to be information first. How much of what's sold on shelves as 'herbs' has actually been properly studied?

Yes, but still, I don't agree with protecting people from themselves.

Not all regulation is paternalistic, and not all paternalistic regulation is bad.

Not all regulation is paternalistic, but if suddenly you can't get St. John's Wort without a prescription it suddenly makes it a lot more expensive to acquire.

[mswas]

I don't know where you get the idea that the "vast majority" of alt med advocates are congenial towards mainstream medicine. Beyond the highly popular alt med websites like whale.to and curezone.com, check out the publications and websites of individual practitioners (i.e. naturopaths, herbalists, chiropractors et al). There is a great deal of hostility and mischaracterization of "allopathic" medicine.

I mean people who take herbal remedies. Not the people who are trying to make a buck.


More classic woo-speak. Alties have tried to appropriate this segment of care for their own, but their claims don't withstand scrutiny. "Wellness" care, from diet and exercise to vaccinations and interventions for high blood pressure and elevated blood lipids (designed to reduce them before they result in heart attacks and strokes) are fundamental to mainstream care.Oh dear god.

Not woo at all. I know you guys love your smug and dismissive buzzwords. I guess the problem is you're not actually reading what I write. So I'll try again. I was talking about all of the cares that get called, 'alt-med', which even you have said have legitimacy. IE Massage. That's the incredible frustration of the vulgar and stupid term, 'alt-med', becuase it causes the sort of confusion you are laboring under at the moment. It's as much the mainstream problem for this wellness continuum thing. There is nothing 'woo' about wellness care at all. That is why I am saying that it would be helpful if people would take the wellness care that we know works out from the alt-med umbrella and bring it under the mainstream umbrella so that people like you will stop uncritically using the term, 'woo', when it's out of place.

You would in reality be hard pressed to find physicians who believe in the chiropractor theory of spinal "subluxations" (http://www.chirobase.org/01General/chirosub.html) that supposedly can be relieved by adjustments. Even some chiropractors (a small minority, unfortunately) concede that these mystery subluxations (which can't be demonstrated on imaging studies or by other (sorry) modalities are a figment of the imagination of Daniel Palmer and the chiros who still believe in his pronouncements. What you will find is a number of physicians who think chiropractic has a credible role in alleviating certain musculoskeletal complaints (once they've been properly diagnosed), though not superior to other hands-on care like physical therapy and massage.

The idea that everything is in competition with everything else is a problem. Chiropractic and massage together are very powerful. There is no competition between chiro, physical therapy and massage therapy, they are complementary.

The bottom line is that alt med (and make no mistake, a high percentage of believers view it as "alternative" and not "complementary" to mainstream medicine) has serious problems when it tries to view itself as not only superior to mainstream care but exempt from the rules that define efficacy and safety. The responses seen in this thread (including tu quoque attacks against the "establishment" and reliance on testimonials) illustrate the mindsets that keep alternative medicine from gaining respect.

A high percentage? What percentage would you like to make up on the spot for this? I bet I have more experience dealing with these types of people than you do. And anecdotally I know that for the most part people are more about complementary techniques than they are about alternative ones. You're trying to assert the radical fringe as the mainstream and it simply isn't. I can find impassioned websites of radical extremists in any grouping. The same percentage of people who have an antipathy to mainstream med are the same percentage of Democrats who believe Bush was behind 9/11. It's that magical 27% of fringe nutters that every overly broad grouping has. ;) My step-Mother saw a Rolfer regularly when I was growing up, but my parents spent over half a million on mainstream medical bills. Most people are interested in complementary.

You can of course come up with tautological definitions all day if that's what you're into.

[JFLuvly]

Just to throw in...

My dad lowered his cholesterol by taking flax seed. He did not change his diet at all he just put it on almost everthing he ate.

Marijuana is quickly showing itself to be helpful for alot of different medical conditions.

I spoke to a doctor who said that years ago people were told that they could not find any problem with their back using CT scans, now using MRI they can see the problem. The point was that just because we don't have the technology to see the problem does not necessarily mean the problem does not exist.

I think the distrust mentioned earlier also comes from drugs being pulled from the market after being labled as safe. Here in Canada recently people were warned to stop taking ACE inhibitors in conjunction with ARB's because it was killing people, even though they had recomended this combination earlier...kinda late when a loved one is dead.

When the list of side effects is worse than the disease, some of us scratch our heads.

That's all...

[Animastryfe]

It's just as bad in Eurpope and Asia, probably worse. The drugstores in Europe are full of homeopathic remedies. In Asia there are all sorts of traditional cures. Some of them probably work, but many are not only nonsense but lead to the slaughter of bears, tigers, and rhinos for their body parts.

I agree, at least about the Asia part. Anecdotally, the average person living in Beijing knows far less about modern medicine and skepticism and trusts alternative medicine more than the average person living in Vancouver, BC. Specifically those two places because I live in those two cities.

[Jackmannii]

I mean (the vast majority of) people who take herbal remedies (are not antagonistic to mainstream medicine). Not the people who are trying to make a buck.The popular websites I've listed and many I've interacted with (including online and in this thread) contradict your claim. Not woo at all. I know you guys love your smug and dismissive buzzwords.Hmm, like "allopathic"? There is nothing 'woo' about wellness care at all. That is why I am saying that it would be helpful if people would take the wellness care that we know works out from the alt-med umbrella and bring it under the mainstream umbrella so that people like you will stop uncritically using the term, 'woo', when it's out of place. Nice try at shifting gears, but what I said was not that wellness care is woo, but that it's an integral part of mainstream medicine, contrary to your assertion that it's the province of alt med. You're trying to assert the radical fringe as the mainstream and it simply isn't. I can find impassioned websites of radical extremists in any grouping.Maybe then you could demonstrate some major alt med sites (including those with message boards) that are devoted to complementary medicine, as opposed to attacking and denying the benefits of mainstream care (here's yet another example (http://www.naturalnews.com)). And it is true that most alt med practitioners see themselves as competing with physicians, otherwise we wouldn't see so many virulent and nonsensical attacks on the medical profession. Those attitudes inevitably filter down to patients.

It would be nice if naturopaths, chiropractors and other alt med practitioners could accept a complementary (and by necessity, limited) role in the care of patients whose primary providers are physicians. But that apparently doesn't bring in enough money for them, so you see naturopaths claiming to offer full-spectrum care and chiros treating infant colic, asthma and other internal medical conditions.

[DanBlather]

So, flax seed helps lower chloresterol. Yep, I heard from my main-stream, (allopathic :)) doctor that high-fiber diets help with that. He also recommended flax-seed oil to help with eye problems. I never heard my doctor say that plant-based substances can't be helpful.

Here is the irony though. We have fringy, science-phobic types point to the good effects a plant has on chloresterol. Now how does this work? Is it "cleansing your aura", or "opening pathways to your chakra"? Nope, it's just following the principles discovered and documented through scientific methodology over the years.

The fact that modern medicine-rejecting types point to studies about chloresterol is ironic. Why do we know about chloresterol and it's effects? It wasn't discovered by someone studying the energy meridians in your body, or checking your aura, it was someone using anatomy, and biology, and chemistry and using tools developed by electricians and engineers following the principles of physics.

But somehow, despite the everyday evidence of how effective science is, we have someone using an electronic medium based on science, point to evidence measured by science, and say "wait a minute, maybe this is something outside the scientfic paradigm".

Please do me a favor and spead this crap through smoke signals and stop pissing on the graves of people who decided it was actually worth the effort to take the hard classes at school.

[hotflungwok]

Well if they understood that it's not medicine it's the dosage, then maybe they wouldn't get the idea that more is better.
What about the people who don't actually need it, for whom any dose is an overdose? How are people supposed to even measure the dosage? One of the reasons herbs can be bad vs normal medicine is that actual dosage is difficult to determine, and can vary wildly whether the herb is dried or fresh or infused or whatever. There's a reason kids are taught not to eat things they don't know anything about, but for some reason adults don't seem to remember this lesson.

Yes, but still, I don't agree with protecting people from themselves.
Why? It's been quite useful in the past. Just ask all the people who had their lives saved by seat belts. I agree that ideally it shouldn't be necessary, but this isn't an ideal world.

Not all regulation is paternalistic, but if suddenly you can't get St. John's Wort without a prescription it suddenly makes it a lot more expensive to acquire.
But there would have to be a reason for it. Given the fact that people have been taking these herbs for a long time now and they're not dropping dead in big piles, I don't think this is a big risk. I think the opposite is more likely, it will be found that most of these herbs don't really have much of an effect.

[mswas]

Nice try at shifting gears, but what I said was not that wellness care is woo, but that it's an integral part of mainstream medicine, contrary to your assertion that it's the province of alt med.

Except that a lot of the wellness care that even you have accepted as being valid is considered to be alt-med, re: Massage Therapy, Forms of Exercise, etc...



Maybe then you could demonstrate some major alt med sites (including those with message boards) that are devoted to complementary medicine, as opposed to attacking and denying the benefits of mainstream care (here's yet another example (http://www.naturalnews.com)). And it is true that most alt med practitioners see themselves as competing with physicians, otherwise we wouldn't see so many virulent and nonsensical attacks on the medical profession. Those attitudes inevitably filter down to patients.

I'm talking about the wo/man on the street who has an interest. You're cherry-picking the ones that pick a hostile platform. If you searched for complementary medicine instead of alternative medicine the websites would skew my direction.

It would be nice if naturopaths, chiropractors and other alt med practitioners could accept a complementary (and by necessity, limited) role in the care of patients whose primary providers are physicians. But that apparently doesn't bring in enough money for them, so you see naturopaths claiming to offer full-spectrum care and chiros treating infant colic, asthma and other internal medical conditions.

Most of the alt-med practitioners that I know DO accept a complementary approach. One of my best friends is a chiropractor and he would NEVER disparage an MD. As I have said many times in threads about Massage Therapy that an LMT shouldn't be saying anything that could be construed as a diagnosis, and shouldn't be treating real conditions without the express permission of an MD. Same with my Jujitsu Sensei who is an acupuncturist/LMT.

There is a whole world of complementary medicine that straddles the line between the mainstream and alt-med, and in my experience it's a bigger industry than the alt-med industry.

[mswas]

What about the people who don't actually need it, for whom any dose is an overdose? How are people supposed to even measure the dosage? One of the reasons herbs can be bad vs normal medicine is that actual dosage is difficult to determine, and can vary wildly whether the herb is dried or fresh or infused or whatever. There's a reason kids are taught not to eat things they don't know anything about, but for some reason adults don't seem to remember this lesson.

Fair enough, but I still don't think that, "Some adults are ignorant best to keep it from everyone.", is a good plan. My view on this spans the spectrum from herbal supplements to what are today illegal narcotics. Unless it is outright deadly in it's normal usage like Crystal Meth, I am against keeping it out of the reach of the average person.


Why? It's been quite useful in the past. Just ask all the people who had their lives saved by seat belts. I agree that ideally it shouldn't be necessary, but this isn't an ideal world.

Yes, and I am opposed to that sort of thing. I am against infantilizing adults. Adults who aren't allowed to take personal responsibility continue to act like children. But this is getting too far into a hijack regarding personal responsibility/freedom.


But there would have to be a reason for it. Given the fact that people have been taking these herbs for a long time now and they're not dropping dead in big piles, I don't think this is a big risk. I think the opposite is more likely, it will be found that most of these herbs don't really have much of an effect.

If it doesn't have much of an effect then it doesn't matter does it?

[mswas]

So, flax seed helps lower chloresterol. Yep, I heard from my main-stream, (allopathic :)) doctor that high-fiber diets help with that. He also recommended flax-seed oil to help with eye problems. I never heard my doctor say that plant-based substances can't be helpful.

Here is the irony though. We have fringy, science-phobic types point to the good effects a plant has on chloresterol. Now how does this work? Is it "cleansing your aura", or "opening pathways to your chakra"? Nope, it's just following the principles discovered and documented through scientific methodology over the years.

The fact that modern medicine-rejecting types point to studies about chloresterol is ironic. Why do we know about chloresterol and it's effects? It wasn't discovered by someone studying the energy meridians in your body, or checking your aura, it was someone using anatomy, and biology, and chemistry and using tools developed by electricians and engineers following the principles of physics.

But somehow, despite the everyday evidence of how effective science is, we have someone using an electronic medium based on science, point to evidence measured by science, and say "wait a minute, maybe this is something outside the scientfic paradigm".

Please do me a favor and spead this crap through smoke signals and stop pissing on the graves of people who decided it was actually worth the effort to take the hard classes at school.

Can you point to a single person in this thread who has said that mainstream medicine is a load of crap?

JFLuvly was just pointing out the frustration that some people feel with the constant back and forth of, "It's good for you, no it's bad for you, no it's good for you again..." You're haranguing at people who DID trust mainstream med and got screwed by it or saw someone close to them get screwed by it.

[DanBlather]

Can you point to a single person in this thread who has said that mainstream medicine is a load of crap?

JFLuvly was just pointing out the frustration that some people feel with the constant back and forth of, "It's good for you, no it's bad for you, no it's good for you again..." You're haranguing at people who DID trust mainstream med and got screwed by it or saw someone close to them get screwed by it.And I'm haranguimg against an indstry ('cause that's what it is) that is taking people for billions of dollars a year. Homeopaths selling water for hundreds of dollars an ounce, eastern-herbalists selling bear paws and tiger penises, chiropractors claiming to cure everything. dentists insisting that you have to have all your lead fillings removed at the cost of thousands of dollars, fringe doctors re-affirming people's belief in "environmental illness", "doctors" who say you need supplements that you can conveniently only buy from them, and on and on.

To me, if it can be proven to work through double-blind studies then it is medicine. If it can't, it ain't. Despite your claims, I see most practioners of non-traditional (non-mainstream, call it what your will) medicine trying to marginalize science-based medicine. They have to, to stay in business.

On the other hand, I have never had a personal doctor claim that some herbs or massage techniques may not be useful for certain conditions. I do know that if I am feeling fatigued all the time I want to first go to a real doctor who will see if I have a physical condition such as anemia, rather than someone who will look first at their formulalry of herbs.

To me, the greates irony is that the left, who is so good about looking at big oil, the insurance companies, and other industries is not livid about homeopaths that sell water at outrageous prices to sick people. It is just stunning that an entire industry can get away with such crap. They should be in jail in my opinion, right next to Madoff.

[Jackmannii]

Except that a lot of the wellness care that even you have accepted as being valid is considered to be alt-med, re: Massage Therapy, Forms of Exercise, etc...Even though alt med elements have tried to appropriate "wellness" for their own, that doesn't make it so, as I have pointed out. Diet, exercise, encouraging people to stop smoking and abusing alcohol, and a horde of preventative measures ranging from efforts to limit cardiovascular disease to environmental action have long characterized mainstream medicine. Alties should be honest enough to recognize this instead of continuing to spread falsehoods on the subject.I'm talking about the wo/man on the street who has an interest. You're cherry-picking the ones that pick a hostile platform. If you searched for complementary medicine instead of alternative medicine the websites would skew my direction.As requested previously, please cite some popular alt med sites that praise mainstream medicine and urge a complementary approach. Most of the alt-med practitioners that I know DO accept a complementary approach. One of my best friends is a chiropractor and he would NEVER disparage an MD.Here again we're supposed to depend on mswas's personal say-so.

The reality is that preaching against mainstream medicine (http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=537) is widespread in the chiropractic community. One of the more damaging forms of this involves opposition to vaccination (various polls suggest something like one-third to one-half of chiros admit being antivaxers). Perhaps the greatest hostility to mainstream medicine comes from the "straights", still a large segment of chiros who think "subluxations" are the cause of most or all disease (and which they can purportedly fix).

"Straight chiropractors are the most extreme in their anti-scientific views. They openly advocate a philosophical rather than a scientific basis for health care, calling mainstream medicine “mechanistic” and “allopathic.” They call physicians “drug pushers” and disparage the use of surgery. They are careful not to give diseases names, but none-the-less they claim to cure disease with their adjustments. They oppose vaccinations. They also openly advocate the replacement of scientific medicine with chiropractic as primary health care. The statements of Dr. Wilson A. Morgan (who just passed away earlier this month), previous Executive Officer of Life College School of Chiropractic, are typical:

“Chiropractic: The health care system whose time as the official guardian of the public’s health is fast approaching!”
“On the other hand, it is equally appropriate for chiropractors to be viewed as generalists in that the far-reaching effects of their highly specific spinal adjustments usually are followed by the decrease and often disappearance of a very broad array of symptoms, disabilities and pathological conditions.”
“Unlike the medical profession, chiropractic has a very strong philosophical basis, which no doubt has contributed to its having been labeled ‘unscientific’ by the more mechanistically-oriented scientific community.”
“It appears that education will prove to be the best strategy in the ‘war on drugs,’ including education about the dangers of drugs available on the street and also those available from the physician as prescriptions.”

Instead of the equivalent of personal testimonials, mswas, how about backing your claims here by showing us a position statement by any major chiropractic organization, recognizing the evidence-based limitations of chiropractic to treating musculoskeletal complaints and urging people to seek their primary care from physicians?

Good luck finding them.To me, the greates irony is that the left, who is so good about looking at big oil, the insurance companies, and other industries is not livid about homeopaths that sell water at outrageous prices to sick people.It's a bipartisan disgrace (note that the two biggest enablers of the supplement industry's ability to fly under the regulatory radar are Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Some on the left buy into woo for philosophical reasons; some on the right try to frame their beliefs as a matter of personal freedom/government intrusion.

I happen to believe that people should continue to have freedom to make choices (good and bad) about their health. I do not believe this gives corporate supplement pushers a free pass on promoting ineffective and unsafe remedies - or that the result of us should shoulder the financial burden of supporting people's choice of woo over evidence-based medicine.

[DanBlather]

It's a bipartisan disgrace (note that the two biggest enablers of the supplement industry's ability to fly under the regulatory radar are Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Some on the left buy into woo for philosophical reasons; some on the right try to frame their beliefs as a matter of personal freedom/government intrusion.Agree, I just don't have as high expectations for the right.

[Honesty]

I think the opposite is more likely, it will be found that most of these herbs don't really have much of an effect.


Oh, really? Do this:

FIRST DAY:

1. Call off from work for the next two - three days. Say that you're sick.

2. Purchase powdered or whole nutmeg from Wal-Mart or a supermarket.

3. Go home and consume it all at once. You might find it useful to dissolve it in a drink, but its not necessary.

4. Continue with daily activities. Do not operate heavy machinery.

WAIT TWO DAYS:

4. Reread the (your) quote above and declare whether you still agree with your statement.


- Honesty

[Magiver]

It depends on the claims made. If someone thinks yoga, tai chi or chigung classes are going to cure a disease they're out of luck. I've used yoga and chiropractic care to great success. The money was well spent. I've also adapted exercise equipment to duplicate the back therapy equipment my family DO uses. In addition to that I've been able to purchase aftermarket muscle therapy equipment that is a fraction of the cost of traditional equipment.

[mswas]

Even though alt med elements have tried to appropriate "wellness" for their own, that doesn't make it so, as I have pointed out. Diet, exercise, encouraging people to stop smoking and abusing alcohol, and a horde of preventative measures ranging from efforts to limit cardiovascular disease to environmental action have long characterized mainstream medicine. Alties should be honest enough to recognize this instead of continuing to spread falsehoods on the subject.

You are complicit in the hoodwinking by using the catch-all net of 'alt-med'. The lack of granularity in the usage is part of the problem.


As requested previously, please cite some popular alt med sites that praise mainstream medicine and urge a complementary approach. Here again we're supposed to depend on mswas's personal say-so.

Your criteria are tautological. If I cite any you'll rightly call them complementary med sites. My point is that there is a great deal of overlap and that the term, 'alt-med' is too broad to say whether it's good or whether it's bad. Some of it is good and some of it is bad. Of course more is bad because within it is contained every piece of junk science that exists.

The reality is that preaching against mainstream medicine (http://sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=537) is widespread in the chiropractic community. One of the more damaging forms of this involves opposition to vaccination (various polls suggest something like one-third to one-half of chiros admit being antivaxers). Perhaps the greatest hostility to mainstream medicine comes from the "straights", still a large segment of chiros who think "subluxations" are the cause of most or all disease (and which they can purportedly fix).

So you are saying that either half to a majority are not antivaxers depending on which study you look at.

"Straight chiropractors are the most extreme in their anti-scientific views. They openly advocate a philosophical rather than a scientific basis for health care, calling mainstream medicine “mechanistic” and “allopathic.” They call physicians “drug pushers” and disparage the use of surgery. They are careful not to give diseases names, but none-the-less they claim to cure disease with their adjustments. They oppose vaccinations. They also openly advocate the replacement of scientific medicine with chiropractic as primary health care. The statements of Dr. Wilson A. Morgan (who just passed away earlier this month), previous Executive Officer of Life College School of Chiropractic, are typical:

They, they, they, they. Not any chiropractors I know, and I know a few.

“Chiropractic: The health care system whose time as the official guardian of the public’s health is fast approaching!”
“On the other hand, it is equally appropriate for chiropractors to be viewed as generalists in that the far-reaching effects of their highly specific spinal adjustments usually are followed by the decrease and often disappearance of a very broad array of symptoms, disabilities and pathological conditions.”
“Unlike the medical profession, chiropractic has a very strong philosophical basis, which no doubt has contributed to its having been labeled ‘unscientific’ by the more mechanistically-oriented scientific community.”
“It appears that education will prove to be the best strategy in the ‘war on drugs,’ including education about the dangers of drugs available on the street and also those available from the physician as prescriptions.”

Yes there are cranks to be certain.

Instead of the equivalent of personal testimonials, mswas, how about backing your claims here by showing us a position statement by any major chiropractic organization, recognizing the evidence-based limitations of chiropractic to treating musculoskeletal complaints and urging people to seek their primary care from physicians?

Here's a pro chiro site that doesn't list the woo in any of it's language.

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/

Here's a site for a chiropractic organization that is doing precisely what you are looking for.

http://chiropracticlive.com/advertising-standards/general-chiropractic-council-helping-sceptics-police-complementary-medicine/

Though most cites would be akin to the first cite because chiropractors aren't going to seek to bash other chiropractors as a standard part of their selling spiel. If you do a search using "chiropractic complementary medicine", you'll find plenty of links to chiros that are favorable to complementary care with mainstream modalities. If you look up Osteopaths you'll find even more, just like you'll find osteopaths that are anti-mainstream med.

Good luck finding them.It's a bipartisan disgrace (note that the two biggest enablers of the supplement industry's ability to fly under the regulatory radar are Senators Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) and Tom Harkin (D-Iowa). Some on the left buy into woo for philosophical reasons; some on the right try to frame their beliefs as a matter of personal freedom/government intrusion.

Took me about two minutes on Google.


I happen to believe that people should continue to have freedom to make choices (good and bad) about their health. I do not believe this gives corporate supplement pushers a free pass on promoting ineffective and unsafe remedies - or that the result of us should shoulder the financial burden of supporting people's choice of woo over evidence-based medicine.

I agree. I believe in truth in advertising. As long as that is your idea of regulation I am all for it.

[mswas]

I've used yoga and chiropractic care to great success. The money was well spent. I've also adapted exercise equipment to duplicate the back therapy equipment my family DO uses. In addition to that I've been able to purchase aftermarket muscle therapy equipment that is a fraction of the cost of traditional equipment.

Really it depends on what the pathology is. And that's the problem with the anti-alt-med crowd, they are using overly broad language, kind of like the study in the OP.

[Jackmannii]

Your criteria are tautological. If I cite any you'll rightly call them complementary med sites.So you have none to cite. When did "I haven't anything to offer except my opinion" become synonymous with "tautological"? Is that an example of "granularity"? :D So you are saying that either half to a majority (of chiropractors) are not antivaxers depending on which study you look at/ So you're fine with the idea that up to half of chiropractors denigrate one of the most outstandingly successful public health initiatives in history? You should also be aware that the two biggest chiropractic organizations oppose mandatory immunization (http://www.chirobase.org/06DD/chiroimmu.html), the basis of any successful program:

"Chiropractic's two largest organizations oppose compulsory immunization. The ACA has acknowledged "routine vaccinations have been a proven and effective campaign in the control of many diseases." [5] However, its current policy is:

The ACA supports each individual's right to freedom of choice in his/her own health care based on an informed awareness of the benefits and possible adverse effects of vaccination.

The ACA is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws thereby maintaining an individual's right to freedom of choice in health care matters and providing an alternative/elective course of action regarding vaccination. [Adopted in 1998]

The International Chiropractors Association (ICA)'s current policy states:

The International Chiropractors Association recognizes that the use of vaccines is not without risk.

The ICA supports each individual's right to select his or her own health care and to be made aware of the possible adverse effects of vaccines upon a human body. In accordance with such principles and based upon the individual's right to freedom of choice, the ICA is opposed to compulsory programs which infringe upon such rights.

The International Chiropractors Association is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws, providing an elective course of action for all regarding immunization, thereby allowing patients freedom of choice in matters affecting their bodies and health. [Adopted in 1993]

The ICA does not acknowledge benefit and even sells a book called Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune System, which contends that vaccines are ineffective and dangerous."
Here's a pro chiro site that doesn't list the woo in any of it's language.
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/NCCAM is a division of the NIH that was put together to investigate (and in the view of some lawmakers, was intended to validate) different types of complementary and alternative medicine. It is not a "pro chiro site", although the page on chiropractic glosses over or completely ignores the prevalence of chiropractic woo (such as "adjusting" peoples' spines to deal with internal complaints).

Neither this site or the other one you listed represent examples of what I asked you for, namely:

"Instead of the equivalent of personal testimonials, mswas, how about backing your claims here by showing us a position statement by any major chiropractic organization, recognizing the evidence-based limitations of chiropractic to treating musculoskeletal complaints and urging people to seek their primary care from physicians?"Took me about two minutes on Google.And it shows.

[vivalostwages]

My mom's oncologist/hematologist said it was a good thing for her to be taking vitamins like C and E, and supplements like calcium and Omega 3.

Mom's gastroenterologist says the calcium is good and the rest are bogus.

Mom's podiatrist says it's wishful thinking that the calcium will do any good.



I just find it interesting that the specialists have very different views of what's good to take and what isn't.

[hotflungwok]

Oh, really? Do this:
I said most, not all. Obviously at least some herbs do have an effect (willow bark comes to mind), but I highly doubt that all herbs can do all the things that's attributed to them. This (http://www.herbsandcures.com/viewdisease.php?herb_id=340) is the first link I get looking for herbal cures, and apparently Fenugreek can cure a whole mess of stuff, including diabetes. And diabetes itself can cured by a bunch of things. (http://www.herbsandcures.com/viewherbs_disease.php?disease_id=102)

[Dead Badger]

I've used yoga and chiropractic care to great success.To cure a disease, or to relieve muscular and/or back pain?

To repeat: chiropractors regularly claim to be able to alleviate infant colic, asthma, ear infections and other conditions completely unrelated to musculoskeletal health. Indeed, in response to the torrent of ridicule the profession has attracted in the UK recently (as a direct result of their decision to conduct censorship of dissent in the courts), the British Chiropractic Association released what they described as the "plethora" of evidence that their treatments were valid. This selection, the very best research they could come up with to validate their claims, was utterly pathetic (http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1775), containing not one single study that even had that most basic scientific requirement, a control group. Some of the papers cited weren't even studies, but were just practice guidelines. Some didn't even involve chiropractic. And this is the best they could cherry-pick.

I don't think anyone would have a particular problem with chiropractic if it limited itself to what it essentially is; a posh massage. But as with reflexologists and homeopaths and other woo practitioners, they continue to make fanciful claims of implausible effects that have no evidence base, and indeed have frequently been shown to be no different to placebo. This is what people object to.

[Jackmannii]

...apparently Fenugreek can cure a whole mess of stuff, including diabetes. And diabetes itself can cured by a bunch of things. (http://www.herbsandcures.com/viewherbs_disease.php?disease_id=102)This sort of thing (multiple different alt med "cures" for a condition) always strikes me oddly. If one herb or supplement fixes the problem, why do you need to have a whole raft of them in your armentarium? The same goes for single alternative modalities (there's that word again) that are alleged to cure multiple conditions. There are a number of these cure-alls kicking around (apple cider vinegar is one example). If one will do the trick for so many different diseases, how come there are half a dozen or more being promoted?

A Google search on the name "Dr. Nancy Malik" (who commented here a few posts back) turns up a homeopath by the same name who practices in India (and whose Wiki Answers page states "She is a popular name among the Homeopathic Fraternity mainly due to the impossible and challenging cases she treats."

If our new Dope commenter is the same Nancy Malik, it'd be interesting to hear from her about the nature of those impossible and challenging cases, and whether it'd be truly worthwhile for the U.S. healthcare system to pour all these increased dollars into treating people with homeopathy, seeing that medical science regards homeopathy as an elaborate system of placebo therapy employing what essentially consists of water.