>so-called “naturopathic”, “homeopathic”, and >other so-called medicines cannot and do not >go through these procedures, and you KNOW >why. They do not work. According to >science(not allopathic, not naturopathic, >but REAL science), as presented they cannot >work. Until authentic double-blind studies >are presented for review, they are >fraudulent.
Fraud implies deliberate deception--as in it's *KNOWN* they don't work. In the absence of studies, you can't say it's fraudulent so long as the practictioners believe it works.
Furthermore, studies don't make things work or not work. They merely find out if they work.
Cute, slythe. You make one flimsy post a week into this discussion & then feign impatience that everyone is not dazzled by your brilliance. Let’s stick to the issues.
Sort of like where I’ve said on several occasions here that allopathic medicine has a much stronger scientific basis than it’s alternative counterparts. I’ve never disagreed with this, you see, slythe.
Since naturopathic medicine has been practiced for thousands of years, I fail to see that it is an unknown quantity. Of unproven efficacy, yes, I’ll agree. The primary danger from alternative medicine comes when it is practiced in back alleys (like abortions 30 years ago), or when the medical establishment becomes so confrontational about it that patients are reluctant to share information about herbal or homeopathic remedies they are taking.
When any new medical treatment, device, or procedure is proposed, it is tested. IF a drug company, medical device manufacturer, or group of physicians a priori believe it will both work AND be economically profitable, that is. Otherwise, it joins thousands of good ideas for studies which wither away for lack of funding.
Or ignored for twenty years or more because they didn’t fit in with the authorities veiwpoints.
Then there’s the occasional study with falsified data, like the South African study supporting bone marrow transplants for advanced breast cancer patients that perpetuated confusion and false hopes for 3 more years than would have otherwise occurred.
Yes, I do. It’s because nonpatentable remedies offer pharmaceutical companies no financial incentives to invest thousands or millions of dollars to prove efficacy.
Since many/most herbal rememdies have never been formally tested, slythe, please explain the basis for your statement that herbal remedies “cannot work”, and your statement they until “studies are presented for review, they are fraudulent”. There seems to be a huge leap of faith here. Not yet tested/not yet proven does not mean the same thing as not workable or fraudulent.
Sue from El Paso
Experience is what you get when you didn’t get what you wanted.
I fail to see how attacking me or allopathic (proven) medicine validates the iffy sciences you support. Supporting a “cure” merely because it is old is silly beyond belief. When you stop attacking “the medical establishment” for holding your supposed sciences back, and either admit that if there was actual evidence it would have been brought forward by now or, miracle of miracles, finally come up with the evidence that real medicine has to provide, I’ll post here again. In the meantime I’ll just sit here and read still more postings on the poor, persecuted, and put-upon multi-million dollar naturopathic industry, and you’re attempts to avoid the need for proof by trying to relabel “untested” as “alternative”, and “tested and proven” as “allopathic”.
One last thing. If someone set two bottles in front of you, one a homeopathetic “cure” and one a bottle of water, could you tell the difference?
slythe, read my posts. What part of “I agree there is no scientific proof of effectiveness, but do not accept that as proof that a given remedy is not effective” do you not understand? I’m not attacking you. I’m attacking your fallacy-filled logic, and your consistent deliberate misrepresentaion of my position. I’m not attacking allopathic medicine; in case you are unaware of it, I practice allopathic medicine. I do believe that makes me qualified to comment on it’s weaknesses, though.
I have never claimed to believe the “iffy science” behind alternative modalities, BUT, much of what I do on a daily basis as an allopathic physician is just as empiric as I believe herbal medicine, acupuncture, homeopathy & other fields to be.
Lack of proof of efficacy does not equal proof of lack of efficacy. I absolutely agree that there is no proven effectiveness to many alternative strategies, BUT, neither is there proven effective allopathic/scientific treatment strategies for many conditions I and my colleagues treat on a daily basis.
Until such time as there are scientifically proven treatments for all conditions affecting the patients I see every day, OR positive proof that alternative remedies do not work, I see no reason to discard centuries of accumulated observations in alternative medicine.
Empiric evidence for herbal medicine, acupuncture AND homeopathy? You’ve GOT to be joking. There is some evidence for herbal medicine, I’ll grant that, but the trouble with it is that you have no idea, for example, if the St. John’s wort you take today is of equal strength as the wort you took previously. It may be so weak as to be ineffective and you won’t know until after you consume it. What pharmaceutical companies do (and I’m not suggesting you’re ignorant of this, I’m pointing this out to anyone else who reads this) is make sure that each dose you take is of equal strength and effectiveness. This is not cheap to do, however, and they do deserve to make a profit on their endeavors. (Whether they’re trying to make too much profit is another matter.)
As for acupuncture, my WAG is that it’s usually the placebo effect and seldom more than that. Perhaps you can numb an affected area by interrupting the nerves with a needle, but in this case, you would merely be taking away the pain (symptom) and doing nothing about the cause (illness).
I see no reason to say more about the ineffectiveness about homeopathy than has already been said.
I hope I never get sick in El Paso. I would not want you treating me.
[[Since naturopathic medicine has been practiced for thousands of years, I fail to see that it is an unknown quantity. Of unproven efficacy, yes, I’ll agree.]]
You mean back when life expectancy was around 42 years?
Isn’t this actually misleading? I recall Tom of Tomndebb once posting that his reading had determined that people did not die off at age 42, or 35, or whatever your favorite number is. Rather, there was significant infant and child mortality which brought the average down. Once into adulthood, people often lived past this hypothetical “life expectancy” number.
Why not? Have you read her posts? She makes it very clear that she is an allopath. What she also says is that she doesn’t nag her patients that try other therapies. She encourages them to continue to see her and let her know what treatments are being given, so she can monitor and advise. Would you rather have a doc that says it’s either my way or the highway? People are going to try things they have heard of from friends or read about in Reader’s Digest. Is it not better to have a doctor that you can tell you are trying St. John’s wort, and who can tell you if it might interact with your blood pressure drug or some such? Part of the “art” of medicine is developing a trust between patient and doctor. I think this is better done when patients are not afraid to tell their doctor what they are doing.
(for those who don’t know, I am Sue’s husband, and I think she is a damn good Doctor.)
“You can be smart or pleasant. For years I was smart.
I recommend pleasant.”
Elwood P. Dowd
[[Isn’t this actually misleading? I recall Tom of Tomndebb once posting that his reading had determined that people did not die off at age 42, or 35, or whatever your favorite number is. Rather, there was significant infant and child mortality which brought the average down.]]Melin
There is no question that mortality among infants and young children was much higher in the olden days than it is today in the industrialized world. And even if that were the only variable accounting for the lower life expectancy, it would not change my point in the slightest. How would it be “misleading”? I would add that since the advent of modern medicine, mortality rates have come down in most age groups and many fewer people reached ripe old age in ancient times than they do today.
Jill Moderator for The Straight Dope
You are committing the sin that all too many doctors do--they think that standard medicine knows everything that is known, that it's not possible for there to be knowledge they don't have. It's just another case of Not-Invented-Here syndrome.
As for the reason that alternative therapies aren't well studied is that it's expensive, and there isn't much funding for such research. Even when there are studies, they often aren't very well done--among other things, there are a lot of no-good practitioners, and how do they get weeded out of the studies? In general, possession of license is *NOT* enough--some years ago, there was a woman here taking the acupuncture license. One question on it--"Where would you send a patient with syphillis?". She answered "The fire department". This was *NOT* a language problem, back then you could take the test in your native tounge. I strongly believe, but do not know, that this is the same person that kept trying to ask my wife questions during the test, and apparently figured that since the proctor couldn't understand the language that he wouldn't figure out what she was doing. Ok, the story of a fool, so what? So what is that after flunking, she went *BACK* to practicing in California where she had been practicing 7? years. (While I didn't actually see her test paper, the information about what was on it came from a member of the state board during a board meeting--I would consider it reliable.)
So what if it's multi-million dollar? There's no patents of any naturopathic stuff, therefore, little money for fancy studies.
You're trying to tar all alternative treatments with the same brush.
Jill and jab1, in answer to your posts, I will quote myself from my original post in this thread.
I think that allopathic medicine has vastly improved the general health & longevity of mankind (or at least those living in developed countries) and that progress in the basic sciences supporting medicine is responsible for that.
Unfortunately, science & technology have not yet created a cure for much of what ails us. I do not believe that embracing scientific progress (which I do) demands that we turn our back upon ancient healing arts. When good, effective, safe allopathic remedies are available to me I will use them. As others have mentioned, allopathic medicine is practiced side-by-side with alternative strategies in other developed countries. But I refuse to tell patients that have conditions that do not yet fit into neat diagnostic cubbyholes with knee-jerk cures that because they do not fit the paradigm, they are not worthy of my time and care.
One thing that I may not have been clear on: I do not practice herbal medicine or other alternative modalities myself. I do not direct patients to specific herbal preparations, alternative providers or even to specific modalities. When what I can offer is not enough, I do encourage patients to look beyond what I have to offer. I suggest that they check out web sites, support groups, etc. and ask them to keep me informed of what they are considering and what they are using.
I also think there may be some misunderstanding how the term “empirical” is used in medicine.
When I say that allopathic physicians often rely on empiric treatment, I mean that since the cause of fibromyalgia has not yet been elucidated, there is no scientific/theoretical basis for treating it with anti-inflammatory meds & anti-depressants. We use anti-inflammatory meds because some symptoms resemble those of arthritis, which does respond to these drugs. We use anti-depressants because some symptoms of fibromyalgia resemble depression. This is one example of empiric treatment.
So, jab1, in answer to your
there IS empirical (=observational) evidence for all of these, including testimonials from several posters on this thread. I have previously stated, though, that there is little scientific evidence that these work beyond a placebo effect, and I believe we are in agreement there.
With all respect for Tom of the tomndebb, it is perhaps worth pointing out that, whereas the “life expectancy” usually quoted in defense and refutation of this point was “life expectancy” at birth, and therefore is affected by the truly appalling rate of infant mortality in ancient and medieval times, life expectancy at age 21 was nothing to boast about, either. Aside from the ever-present threat of being killed in a war, or, as was more likely, being tortured to by a soldier to find your hidden (and probably non-existent) hoard of gold, to complete the dampnum (medieval economic warfare), to just because that soldier was feeling a bit off-color, there were also the ever-present threats of famine and pestilence (whoever John the Revelator was, and whatever we may think of the rest of his text, he got that part right).
If any have a justified scepticism towards this claim, I urge them to check European dynastic history. Kings and ruling nobles were (generally) better fed, and protected from the vicissitudes of their environments, than were the peasantry. Moreover, they are a select group in that there is a certain bias towards not dying in childhood (if you die before your father, you inherit his title). Strike out those assasinated (such as Richard II of England and James III of Scotland), and those inheriting and dying as children (such as Jean I of France and Enrique I of Castile), and I believe that life expectancy will still be found to be 10-15 short of present expectations.
“I don’t just want you to feel envy. I want you to suffer, I want you to bleed, I want you to die a little bit each day. And I want you to thank me for it.” – What “Let’s just be friends” really means
Astrology has been practiced for thousands of years. So what?
I don’t think that is the primary danger. The primary danger is that people will actually believe this crap and use it instead of actual medicine. Or that they will use it thinking it has no side effects, and even if they tell their doctors their doctors won’t know about any side effects because there haven’t been any decent scientific studies done (obviously, we’re moving away from homeopathy and into “herbals” here, since homeopathy can’t have side effects because it has no effect of any type). The last “REALLity Check” column (a media review column) I wrote for our newsletter discussed a number of recent news items dealing with herbals. There were the high levels of PCBs in shark liver oil, the cancer patients who use herbals and have them interfere with the cancer treatments, the finding that St. John’s Wort interferes with anti-rejection drugs for heart transplant patients and anti-HIV drugs as well. Since then I found several other articles about other similar problems (don’t have them handy).
Maybe you consider all of this a symptom of the “back room” problem. I consider it a symptom of unscientific practices.
Life expectancy is how long you can expect to live. This includes factors such as infant mortality, disease, famine, war, etc.
Life span is the “natural” length of human life. It is how long the body will function before it gives up from old age. It does not rely on environmental factors.
While life expectancy has varied throughout the ages, and is currently pretty good in the Western world (developing world still has problems that modern medicine and practices could greatly improve), there is no indication that human life span has changed significantly. (Although there is some distribution, some living longer than others. There may be unknown environmental factors at play here.)
That, of course, may change in the near future with efforts going to studying aging. We’ll see.
I regret that this discussion has come up during what has been a comedy of errors in the line-digging interruption of my telephone service. Just back on, hopefully for at least another day.
Since this has strayed away from homeopathy into the realm of “alternative vs allopathic”, I’d like to bring up a couple of points concerning a discipline I’ve studied for years; medicinal herbs.
There seems to be the view here that since there are no “qualified” practitioners, or FDA guidelines for herbal medicine, that it is unreliable, if not dangerous. There are many qualified people who have been practicing and teaching, and are working toward a certification process that will enact guidelines to assure responsible professionals. This should be in place within five years. The main annual conference for medicinal herbal practice, held in NC, has seen a huge increase in attendance by MD’s, researchers, and a large percentage of RNs, who are trying to fill the current gap in knowledge.
The FDA has been trying to reach a system of quality control for herbal substances. The biggest hurdle is the fact that since herbals are unpatentable, the expensive process of testing cannot be recouped by a manufacturer. To my mind, the answer would be to institute a less expensive, but no less rigorous, set of standards.
As to the efficacy of herbal substances, there is now a huge boom in research in the United States. Many scientific studies have already been done in Germany, resulting in the Commission E Monographs, available in English. As to why German science isn’t accepted in the US, perhaps Sue can elucidate. The Center for the Study of Natural Products is a recent addition to the University of Mississippi, and is doing hardcore research, at the cellular level, of medicinal herbs. If they don’t have any potential, I doubt this would have been undertaken. The staff pharmacognocists also do fieldwork with “folk” herbalists in order to gain knowledge and direction of use.
I think that we are at a point in time when healing treatments outside the current structure are being integrated. If an herb has had an effective use, we can now analyze and find out why it works. This technology wasn’t available when the Big Split between synthetic and natural substances happened. We now have the means to begin an understanding, and hopefully can utilize it in order to provide the best available treatment for the ills that plague us all.
Something to keep in mind about herbs--an awful lot of our medicines originally came from natural sources. Of those that don't, a fair number are actually just modifications on an old theme.
Thus it should be obvious that there must be at least some herbs that do have useful effects.
I do agree with other posters on here that herbs have a dosage problem--given an herb or a similar compound from a drug company, you'll probably get better results from the drug company's product. However, not all herbs have been converted to drugs yet.
How could you maintain the rigorousness of current testing and yet lower the cost to something that could be supported from the herbal community???
What I think would be useful and practical is standards for impurities and labelling of what dosage is actually used. If likely candidates for therapeutic substances are known, dosages for them should also be given.
They should also be required to make as much of a standard drug disclosure form as current knowledge permits. Requiring them to do research isn't economically viable, though.
Loren: That is the quandary of the system of research/patents of medicinal substances under the current FDA system. It costs so much for the testing, that unless you can claim exclusive ownership of the substance, you cannot recoup the cost of proving the efficacy of it. And herbal substances, being of “natural” origin, cannot be patented. So, research done purely in the interest of efficacy is difficult to pursue. The arguement of “no clinical studies” has to be viewed in this light. The ideal rational solution is to have research grants based on pure scientific inquiry to fund the exploration of the benefit of these substances. As to why that doesn’t happen; it seems to fall in the realm of politics. And, so, why not?