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.
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”.
That’s the point I was making.
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.
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 I know of one (unpublished) study that looks at the various herbal remedies prescribed by herbalists in China for a variety of illnesses, including breast cancer.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.
A mention of a relevant study : $2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found
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 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 await with interest one or more published studies that establish this finding. Oncologists would be delighted to have additional effective treatments in their arsenal.
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.
And pray tell which branch of science is that?
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.
“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.
Medical science.
Sorry couldn’t resist, ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.