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.
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.
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’.
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.
I am talking about basic anatomy and comprehension of homeostasis, not a medical degree.
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.
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.
sighModality as used in 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:
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
That’s interesting to know, thanks.
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.”
This studydirectly 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.
