I want to throw up [homeopathy]

Hrrrmph – You (collectively) seem to have me coming and going on this — how is it that (some) “folk remedies” are total B.S., until researchers demonstrate that they really DO work…and then all of a sudden it’s Science who “owns” the knowledge. C’mon, I’ve seen the headlines - “Traditional cure turns out to have measurable medicinal properties after all.” Where do you think people get some of their ideas for research?

I’ll give you one - it turns out chicken soup IS good for colds after all. Did people start out testing every variety of soup ever created, just in case one might help? What, did somebody just open their cupboard one day and think “hmmm, there’s got to be a cure in here somewhere.” Where would they have gotten the idea, if it weren’t for that old bromide.

Same with “an apple a day” - that one turned out to have legs, too.

Sure, I’m gonna pick the one that’s been “proven” over one that’s merely the latest fad - but fads and profit motives exist in mainstream medicine, too, and I’m skeptical of those as well. It would be refreshing if professionals would acknowledge this.

Don’t be so quick to dis de voodoo, mon! Last year I was in the big easy for JazzFest and I stopped in a voodoo shop. I bought my kids a few trinkets. My daughter’s soap to ward off envy worked according to her. My son’s lucky deer eye helped him ace a test. :smiley:

I understand that there can be problems. Nevertheless your doctor has had years of scientific training.
Alternative practioners have not.

Copper bracelets are not just ‘not better’ - there’s no evidence they work. At all.
There are indeed lots of charlatans.
And I think this is a key point:

If your alternative medicine treatment (e.g. copper bracelet) fails, who do you complain to?
There’s no official body monitoring alternative medicine. There’s no research to say ‘this doesn’t work - we need a rethink’.

fessie, I know you’re brighter than this.

A theory about a drug or medical treatment, or any scientific proposition is speculative until confirmed by solid studies. This isn’t something Science invented to pick on alties - it’s applied rigorously (and sometimes rancorously) to cancer treatments, pharmaceuticals, cold fusion - you name it. I’m sure you’ve also seen headlines like “Natural cure (black cohosh etc.) shown to be ineffective”. Or for that matter “Promising cancer drug therapy (i.e. antiangiogenesis drugs) strikes out in clinical testing”. There is constant assessing and reassessing of what drugs and therapies work. All that those who believe in evidence-based medicine want is for the proponents of alt med to play by the same rules as everyone else.

As far as “owning” the knowledge - this is only true in the sense that once alternative medicine is proven effective, it isn’t really “alternative” any more - it’s just medicine. I think that’s why many alties resist the idea of clinical testing for their favorite remedies (beyond the fear that they’ll be shown to be useless). Much of the appeal of alt med is the idea that one is putting something over on the Medical Establishment. If the Establishment embraces an herbal-based drug (as it has in the case of digitalis, colchicine, Taxol etc.) the alties evidently find that to be a downer and go off looking for the next big thing in the pages of folklore.

I don’t think anyone is suggesting that simply because something is used before it’s been thoroughly clinically tested that it cannot work, or is B.S. What people are arguing is that if you make treatment choices based on non-tested methods, you’re taking your chances (as you do with anything else, I imagine). If you choose non-tested methods over tested methods because you don’t trust your doctors or the “establishment,” then you’re letting a bizarre paranoia influence your decision-making for the worse.

Do I starve a fever and feed a cold, or feed a fever and starve a cold? Or, does it make any difference at all?

I bought a $17 bottle of tea tree oil online. Painted it on & around the nail at least once a day for a couple of months. Then part of the nail peeled off. It grew back perfectly & the fungus hasn’t returned after a couple of years.

From Wikipedia:

There appear to be few side effects. But–investigate on your own. Don’t just take my advice.

Note: I don’t recommend “mommy to mommy” therapy for anything serious. I get checkups & flu shots & will go to a doctor when I get sick. Except that I’m rarely sick.

Out of curiosity, I just did a quick cruise of the databases and online resources, and all I could find was that there remains no support for this assertion. Can you let me know where you found empirical evidence for this, or indeed for a reduction in visits to the doctor being associated with specifically eating apples (versus, say, the health benefits of a balanced diet that includes fruit)?

What, soup or apples?

No, a study comparing apples and oranges.

Using bananas as a control group?

Hell, I’m not doing anything. You could just use me as the control group.

there’s a fruit vs. vegetable joke that virtually writes itself here, right?

I don’t have pubmed here (and don’t have the patience to read the verbage anyway) but since you asked, this is probably what I recall reading (excerpts from it anyway, I’m sure it was just a wire service story):

**Notice that last paragraph – it’s perfectly understandable, but that’s exactly the kind of thing that makes people distrust “the establishment.”
In case you don’t like “CDC Marketplace”, here’s the Mayo Clinic’s take on it:

Here’s some stuff about apples (quotes a UC Davis study) from “straight from the doc” :

Jackmanii, I’d lay odds that your willingness to engage with people one-on-one to discuss medical treatment options and debunk ineffective medicine as a friend (which I applaud and admire, truly) is much more effective than someone just saying “Trust your doctor.” Talk about relying on faith!

Your knowledge of medicine was gained first-hand, no? You didn’t read about illness, you touched it yourself, saw it, smelled it. Wasn’t that part of the argument for 36-hr rotations for Residents, so that they could really see their patients’ progress? First-hand experiential knowledge generally trumps someone’s “word”. And information from a trusted friend is probably next (the Internet’s likely third, but that’s a whole 'nuther thread).

A doctor’s medicine? When it failed your Grandpa/cousin/next-door-neighbor? When a physician doesn’t make eye contact, doesn’t know you, doesn’t explain things, gives the flat-out wrong information (I had one read me the results of someone else’s films, thinking they were mine)… If a person doesn’t have a good reason to have faith in medicine, why would they?

I really don’t think most people want to be stupid, they’re just afraid.

Honestly, that makes sense and seems perfectly fair. I don’t know how you would do it, though. How would you test the effectiveness of prayer when it was carried out by people who don’t believe in it? I can’t even begin to google that one, everyone has an axe to grind.

Yet I know people who’ve incorporated prayer (and “healing touch”) in their treatment regimens (along with chemo and radiation for my friend with lung cancer, and insulin for the diabetic) and it worked. The lung cancer was pretty amazing, her odds were terrible and ::knock wood:: she’s doing great (probably helps that she’s a Minister) (the staff about fell over when she blessed her chemo drip, no one had ever done that before).

But perhaps you would say that prayer is no longer viewed as “alternative”? That’s the main tool I think of.

That’s interesting, I know someone who integrated chemo with a prayer-based regimen and the *chemo *worked.

It also strikes me as pretty stupid. I could be wrong, here, but if they can isolate what it is in chicken soup that acts as a decongestant, they can isolate that element, patent it, and market it as a medicine. I’m open to correction from any doctors or patent lawyers who happen by.

Also, can I ask why you keep injecting religion into the discussion? We’re talking about medical treatment, not supernatural intercession.

If the chickens could talk, wouldn’t they do their damnedest to convince us that there is nothing healthy about chicken soup? Wouldn’t their last words in fact be curses upon any who would eat them, interspersed with hysterical pleas to the chicken god for rescue or salvation of their gallian souls?

Incorporating anything that has not been proven harmful into medical treatment is not–well, “harmful.” If people want to pray, good for them. But anecdotal information is not clinical data.

Some alternative therapies are clinically useful. And others are being investigated.
Check out this list. Lots of data under the links.

Will you reject the ones that are adopted by the Evil Medical Establishment?

Well, I think that drinking hot liquids makes my throat feel better. So does chilled orange juice. Speaking for myself, I’ll “treat” a sort throat using those methods.

If symptoms persist beyond a couple of days–off to the MD!

When I broke my fibula, I went straight to the MD.

I have to say that I am incredulous about no one being interested in finding the cold reducing components in chicken soup. Sure no one can patent chicken soup, but if you find the active component you can concentrate it and sell that. A concentrated version would likely be a lot more effective too. It sounds a lot like the writer of the article adding their own 2 cents.