Why can’t mainstream scientists (biologists, ect.) have an element of naturopathy in them? Just because these twisted quacks out there practice their depraved agendas under the label of naturopathy doesn’t necessarily mean that everything related to naturopathy is quackery. (I’m sure that is some type of logical fallacy.) You know, many times the truth (specifically about health) is arrived at through the backdoor (pre-evidence or pre-supporting studies or trying slightly illogical things, or by accident). So why don’t I see more people thinking like this? What is better, someone who knows science and uses sound philosophy, intuition and good sense, or someone who merely uses science like a damn robot? Yet, people who drink tea and eat herbs such as garlic for preliminary treatment of problems are thought of as stupid…
Scientific studies that are run without the barest bit of evidence to support them don’t get funding. Why? In the case of government organizations, the government doesn’t want to be seen as wasting taxpayers’ money, lest they get soundly criticized for funding garbage. In the case of corporations, they don’t want to fund something that has no evidence behind it because it’s more likely than not going to be a collosal waste of money.
If you’re arguing, however, that science never turns to nature for medications - well, that’s patently false.
I haven’t seen a study showing any positive effects from what is generally known as “naturopathy”, but I admit I haven’t been looking very hard, if at all.
If there aren’t any, the reason is one of two:
- Naturopathy has no positive effects.
- Not enough correctly done studies have been made.
If it’s 1, there’s nothing to gripe about. If it’s 2, it’s probably because of those same quacks you mention. There are areas of research that aren’t easy to get taken seriously, because of widespread hoaxing within them. Either way it’s not the scientists’ fault.
You sound very angry about this, so it’s obviously something you feel strongly about. What evidence in favour of naturopathy have you seen that caused you to take up its flag with such fervour?
I’d like to add that intuition isn’t much of a tool in science, and shouldn’t be trusted.
Actually, that’s almost always how medications are discovered. It’s very often trial-and-error. The difference between sound medicine and quackery is that sound medicine relies on objective evidence, rather than anecdotal evidence. The problem with saying, “Gee, I did X and I feel better”, is that you don’t have any way of knowing that X is the cause of your feeling better, or whether you just feel better due to the placebo effect, or whether X will be successful in helping other people to feel better. That’s why studies MUST have controls. Time and time again, we’ve found that failing to control for other causes results in mistakenly attributing a particular result to the WRONG cause. If your treatment is valid, then it will be able to withstand the rigors of a controlled study. If it can’t then it isn’t valid.
You know, most psychotherapeutic treatments in the medical community are based on clinical correlation. We do not fully understand the mechanism by which they work, but the treatment is accepted anyways, correct?
But, when naturopathy is applied in this same manner, it is looked down on. There’s a double-standard for you.
You know, everyone wants to take pills instead of eating fresh food. All those phytonutrients? Yeah, you are gonna want to have those. I don’t know why, but I already “know” that they are helpful, whether studies show they are or not.
Natural is the way to go. It’s just figuring out how to apply the “natural” philosophy correctly. Not many people know how to, hence the quacks…
Simple, use science, but don’t let science blind you to the truth about health that is within our reach.
And when your product is revealed to be entirely useless when you discount the placebo effect, blame science for ignoring you.
Somebody needs their copy of “Natural Cures that They don’t want you to know about” taken away until they’ve got an actual grounding in scientific methods.
Hauss, who in the mainstream medical community has ever told you not to eat a balanced and diverse group of foods, or not to eat natural foods? No one. I just think that if someone wants to make a particular claim about any given herb, supplement, diet, or whatever is going to improve anyone’s health, then they should be able to back up that claim with evidence gathered through the scientific method.
Basically, it needs to meet a gold-standard of randomized, double blinded clinical trials before it’s proof rather than just a vague idea or has some correlational support.
I think a lot of “mainstream” diet advice is essentially quakery because we’ve simply never bothered to use clinical trials to prove any particular claim. Like should we cut out as much fat as we can and eat carbohydrates or not? I don’t have the answer, but before we put up a million pyramid posters in middle schools, we need to have clear scientific support for those claims rather than just reasonable ideas about it.
This amusing story’s been floating around for seven years:
Listening to Prozac but Hearing Placebo:
A Meta-Analysis of Antidepressant Medication
I’ve yet to hear the deafening silence of science.
Without using the scientific method, how do we determine what the “truth” about our health really is?
Also, for the purposes of this discussion, could you define the word “natural”?
I happen to thnk that the placebo effect of living a natural lifestyle is more powerful than anything. (Hey, if the placebo effect is that powerful, then why not use it to it’s full potential?!).
But, human nature is to be lazy, and humans are too busy these days, so let’s all do it the lazy way and do all types of things OTHER THAN VIGOROUS CARDIO!!!
Also, another phenomenon that is at play here is this: what is best for the whole population is not necessarily what is best for the individual. This goes for politics as well as personal health. If you eat grapes and you shit something nasty every time after, then NO they are not a healthy food (for you). But this person will search their diet to find out what it is they are eating that is making them shit, all the while not considering the grapes may not agree with them, because “everyone knows that grapes are healthy”…
You know what, I can tell I might start to drive some of you nuts unless I make clear that: Really this is a personal issue I have. I have personally come into contact with many doctors that have given incomplete advice to me, including my uncle who is a nephrologist. Also, I have come into contact with many laypeople who approach their health by reading stupid articles in magazines and acting on them. So, I am searching for the origin to why these people act this way and I am only left with how scientists approach truth when dealing with the body.
if you read, you would know that I condone using science only in conjunction with philosophy and sound common sense. In fact, that statement doesn’t say that I don’t use the SM, it merely says don’t let the SM blind you.
As a working biologist, I can assure you that both government and private funding sources DO allocate money into researching promising “natural” or traditional remedies. And a whole bunch of them are passing into conventional medicine - yogurt treatment for vaginal yeast infections, anti-nausea acupressure wrist cuffs, St. John’s Wort for depression (just to name a few). All of the major drug companies have people out there interviewing local sources for medicinal herbs - and testing them if they look good. The problem is, most fail rigorous testing, or are less effective or have more side effects than traditional medicine. I’m not saying more couldn’t be done in this area, but claiming that scientists are blind to “natural” treatments is simply false.
The big, glaring exception to this rule (IMHO) is with already-illegal drugs, such as marijuana and ibogaine, where bona fide medicinal effects are ignored because drugs are BAAAAAD.
mischievous
But how do you know the common sense is “sound”? How do you know any particular philosophy being advocated is valid? I guess what I’m asking, here, is how does the scientific method “blind” someone, and more importantly, how does anyone “see” without it?
I’d still like to know what precisely you mean by “natural” in the context of this discussion. I’m also curious how you are defining “science,” if you don’t mind.
I think you’re misunderstanding what blowero said, hauss. Those psychotherapeutic treatments you mention have statistically significant results in well-designed studies. There’s a huge difference between that and the anecdotal “support” most naturopathy has.
You do not need to understand the mechanism in order to say that a treatment is effective. But you do need to prove that it is, in fact, effective.
Translation: I don’t know what the fuck I’m talking about.
Got news for you, chief. The quacks you decry make their money off people like you.
This happens to me every sodding time I go there! - last time it happened, I ended up having to build the kitchen units all by myself!
Yes, because doctors prevent people from exercising.
You realize that can be said about the natural way you’re talking about?
Ok, but I’m sorry to say, you’ve come up with stupid doctors. Including your uncle.
No. There are stupid people and there are smart people. Science is not a human being, it’s people who are stupid that mess things up.
Tadda! I figured it out for you.
Scientists do science, then talk to reporters who possibly understand what the scientists say, or not, and reporters write stories that they think will appeal to the readers, and the stories are selected and motified by editors and producers and those stories are selected and read and maybe understood by readers who then choose whether and how to act upon what they’ve read and maybe understood.
And you put the blame for the readers’ health decision on the science? Honestly, if 10% of the readers’ reaction is based on actual science, it’s a freakin’ miracle.
hauss, “natural” isn’t automatically good, either. Snake venom, poison ivy, and nightshade are all “natural.” Doesn’t mean I’d use them as medicine.
What I want to see is a study that shows whether studies are legitimate. Somtimes the body takes a long time to heal itself… do the studies hang around long enough to see?
I just know how to keep myself healthy. Get up, take a crap, get a drink of water, take some BCAA’s, do some calisthenics/boxing in the sun, stretch, get on with the day, do intense cardio sometime every day, lift heavy weights twice week, eat a load of fruit and veggies (organic if I can help it), very little meat, no milk or any weird mucous producing food like that, 1 cup of herbal tea somewhere in there, use plenty of spices and oils in my food, prepare and pack my own meals rather than buy them out, rest around 7.5-8 hours a night, learn how to calm my nerves at certain stressful times of the day, always keep my mind active either learning or socializing, keep the air in my room clean at night with purifier, don’t have any unhealthy habits, keep my room, kitchen and house clean, ect.
I see a lot of people not doing this stuff… they take vitamins and do colon cleansers instead.
What I think I have a problem with is family doctors’ advice. And advice that doctors give in the casual setting. Very impresonal, very simplistic. Very simple-minded, “I haven’t heard of that, and since I can’t use what I know from med. school to actually think, just take these and you will feel better.”