Alternative medicine?

[FM Arouet666]

There is no alternative medicine. There is only scientifically verified medicine and unverified medicine. A few examples of the latter have been verified, acupuncture for example. However, with verification the eastern mystical nonsense surrounding acupuncture has been put to rest. Why do people hold alternative medicine to a different standard expected from the rest of modern society?

Do you buy a TV with the expectation that it will work some of the time? When your mechanic offers an implausible explanation for the failure of your internal combustion engine do you readily accept nonsense?

The answer is that humans are gambling animals. I am sitting here watching a commercial for a product that claims to enhance memory. If studied, I suspect that the product would show no evidence of memory enhancement. But who cares, a few bucks for a dream, what do you have to lose?

Consider those with a more serious illness, more than a failing memory. A cancer patient may have a lot to lose from a delay in treatment. Faced with certain death, a cancer patient may be willing to try any advertised cure. A ripe environment for exploitation.

To those who believe in alternative medicine, do you believe that the alternative medicine community is free of exploitation? If you acknowledge that abuses can and do occur, how should abuses be redressed? Perhaps alternative medicine should be subjected to the same kind of scrutiny as modern medicine. Research the claim, determine the true effect, claims based in fact.

But to do so would redefine alternative medicine, losing the 'alternative' moniker. Seems to me, a lot of individuals are reaping benefit from a lack of evidence based medicine. What is the rational for refusing an evidence based approach to alternative medicine?

[Ayesha]

1. Somewhere in the middle

I believe that there are some "alternative" treatments that are bunk and some that work. But how to sort out the wheat from the chaff? Studies. Multiple studies, done by unbiased parties, not pharmaceutical companies with a vested interest in not seeing a 25 cent herbal remedy work as well as their $25 pill with fewer side effects. People are quick to discount alternative treatments based on a single study while there can be all kinds of varying results of studies on prescription drugs and yet they'll still be on the market.

The greatest concern, I think, is when people have life-threatening illnesses and try to rely only on alternative therapies. If there are conventional treatments available, it's foolish not to try them first, and use alternatives as an adjunct or if conventional treatments fail and there is no other hope.

People need to be protected from intentional scams, but there also needs to be room for innovation, and natural medicines by and for people, not corporations.

[Celebration]

2. consumer choice

Studies take money and people with the mindset to do them. Therefore scientific studies are done generally when required--for FDA approval of drugs, for example. People who do research generally do it because of large grants that they get through their universities. Only large drug companies who have patented medications can afford that. Studies that are done outside of that paradigm are hit and miss, and scattered, and depend on someone's great interest in the subject, and may take time and finances.

So, there can be quite a long lag time between when something is introduced and when it is "proven." During this time it is generally labelled alternative.

As with all other purchases, we trust consumers to know what they want. Someone may purchase five reiki treatments rather than buying a new cell phone. So? That is the free market system at work. Nobody is forcing anyone to turn to alternative treatments. It is just another consumer choice, or non-choice. People make money doing all kinds of things.

Anyone who advertises a product falsely is subject to being prosecuted for fraud--there are laws in place that take care of fraud.

[Orrex]

8. The term "healthcare consumer" is a red herring

Studies take money and people with the mindset to do them. Therefore scientific studies are done generally when required--for FDA approval of drugs, for example. People who do research generally do it because of large grants that they get through their universities. Only large drug companies who have patented medications can afford that. Studies that are done outside of that paradigm are hit and miss, and scattered, and depend on someone's great interest in the subject, and may take time and finances.

Well, that's how it goes, and it explains why pharmaceutical companies charge so much for new drugs and why they fight to protect their patents. If "alternative" "medicine," a multi-billion-dollar industry, wants to achieve credibility, it must pursue these studies in an open and intellectually honest fashion.

Instead, "alternative" practitioners prefer to maintain the "alternative" mystique, as if they're underground healers struggling to benefit humanity regardless of the agenda of Big Pharma or the evil AMA.

Additionally, one does not "consume" healthcare--a necessary and often life-altering service--the way one "consumes" a cellphone or an SUV. To refer to "healthcare consumers" is to attempt to blur the argument from what-is-actually-effective to what-can-be-most-effectively-marketed. It is a reprehensible practice whether undertaken by pharmaceutical companies or by Andrew Weil et al, and it should be abolished.

And to allow the mythical free market to work as you describe, we'd have to dergulate the pharmaceutical industry and allow them to engage in whatever marketing methods that their vast wealth permits, just as we currently allow "alternative" practitioners do now. In fact, pharmaceutical companies are currently at a disadvantage in this regard because they are regulated in a way that "alternative" pratcitioners are not.

The free market is a hopelessly poor method of improving healthcare safety and efficacy. At best, the free market can be invoked to allow the consumer a greater range of options, but that's hardly the same as improving the healthcare system itself.

Anyone who advertises a product falsely is subject to being prosecuted for fraud--there are laws in place that take care of fraud.

That's true, but it doesn't stop snakeoil peddlars like Dr. Hulda Clark and Kevin Trudeau from marketing their wares. If we are to believe that these anti-fraud laws are effective, then these charlatans must be required to pay for their crimes. Instead, Trudeau touts himself as a martyred crusader fighting to bring his miracle cures to the public despite the hegemonic FCC.

I would have more sympathy for the "alternative" "medicine" industry if it weeded out criminals like these. Apparently the free market is insufficient to this task, as well.

[Celebration]

20. There is no free market in pharmaceuticals

What a ridiculous argument. The consumer is often insured, and pays less than the market value for pharmaceuticals. Also pharmaceuticals are patented and therefore have monopoly prices built in--way more than herbs, etc. When pharmaceutical companies advertise, it is to a consumer that generally pays a lot less than the price of the drug.

The free market works way better in alternative medicine, where insurance and government spending is much less likely to interfere with the free market. It is not up to a naturopath to "weed out" anyone. That is a job of law enforcement. Of course when they get overzealous, there is a consumer backlash. And, in California, there is a law that anyone can use any kind of treatment modality they want as long as they do not represent themselves as being MDs. There were just too many mind/body techniques coming out there for licensing to keep up with them. That is what the taxpayer wanted there.

I also feel that drugs are too regulated. I would love for the free market to work better in that arena, but we are up against a lot of barriers, insurance, government programs, and the FDA, to name three. And the pharmaceutical companies like working in this environment, particularaly when the legislators are in their hip pocket and drugs cannot be imported from Canada.

OF COURSE PEOPLE CONSUME HEALTHCARE. WE ARE CONSUMERS OF HEALTH CARE. That is why we want the freedom to choose the type of health care we want. I sure don't want big brother in there limiting my choices. They can keep busy trying to prosecute fraud.

[Orrex]

23. It's like arguing with a crazy Libertarian, but I repeat myself

Hallowed be The Free Market, the cure of all ills! What a crock of shit, no matter who puts it forth.

The consumer is often insured, and pays less than the market value for pharmaceuticals. Also pharmaceuticals are patented and therefore have monopoly prices built in--way more than herbs, etc. When pharmaceutical companies advertise, it is to a consumer that generally pays a lot less than the price of the drug.

Did you mean "a lot more" in that last sentence? If not, then I think you changed gears in a way that really changes your argument.

Anyway, a patent is not a monopoly in the sense that hegemonic market-control is a monoploy. A patent is the protection of intellectual propery. Is an author a monopoly because he owns the copyright on his novel?

OF COURSE PEOPLE CONSUME HEALTHCARE. WE ARE CONSUMERS OF HEALTH CARE.

And that's the Libertarian angle. Are we consumers of police protection? Are we consumers of national defense? Are we consumers of public highways? Is the beneficiary of a trust a consumer of that trust? Are we consumers of the above in the same way that a guy buying a cellphone is a consumer?

If that's your view, then I have no interest in arguing this point with you, because I know from experience that once a person has sipped from the golden freemarketeer's chalice, there's little chance that reason, logic, or evidence can reach the person anymore.

[Celebration]

25. collectivism vs. libertarianism

We have to collectively make decisions on things like roads and national defense. And, where does that get us? Our current administration and the Halliburtons of the world!! Is that what you want in health care? Bribes and huge companies where all of us are locked into one mold? The pharmaceutical companies would like that. If national defense is our model for health care then heaven help us!!

Oh, not to mention highways where toll roads administered by foreign companies seem to be the latest fraud that is being attempted so many places.

I think you just made my argument for me.

And, with public libraries, which I support, we can still check out whatever books we like. Would you like our public libraries to censor books and only include the ones that you approve of?

[Orrex]

26. Libraries

And, with public libraries, which I support, we can still check out whatever books we like. Would you like our public libraries to censor books and only include the ones that you approve of?

If I go to the "medical books" nonfiction section of my library, I want all the books therein to contain actual medical information, rather than the feel-good nonsense penned by Andrew Weil, Deepak Chopra, and Kevin Trudeau. Put their books in the fiction section, or maybe in the "shameless, unmitigated bullshit" section.

Is it censorship to combat printed/broadcast falsehoods? I think not, just as freedom of speech doesn't protect a slanderer.

We have to collectively make decisions on things like roads and national defense. And, where does that get us? Our current administration and the Halliburtons of the world!! Is that what you want in health care? Bribes and huge companies where all of us are locked into one mold? The pharmaceutical companies would like that. If national defense is our model for health care then heaven help us!!

Oh, not to mention highways where toll roads administered by foreign companies seem to be the latest fraud that is being attempted so many places.

That's a lovely, rambling rant, but it's wholly irrelevant to our discussion. Are we, or are we not, consumers of these services? Are we consumers of national defense? Of public highways? Is the beneficiary of a trust a consumer of that trust? Or do you suggest that one's consumer/non-consumer status is predicated on the mismanagement of the service/commodity in question?

Frankly, we are not consumers of healthcare, unless you buy into the fiction that we are always-consumers-in-all-things. We are beneficiaries of the healthcare system. Were it not for the efforts of Republicans and big business, I grant you, we would be more direct beneficiaries of the system. However, the mismanagement of Halliburton does not make

[Celebration]

27. comment

Is it censorship to combat printed/broadcast falsehoods? I think not, just as freedom of speech doesn't protect a slanderer.

IMHO, dangerous, dangerous, slippery slope thinking

We are definitely on different pages. I suggest that you see whomever you want for your health care needs and leave the rest of us alone.

[Orrex]

31. Slippery slope is a fallacy

If you can't get past that fact, you have no business undertaking an argument.

Do you suggest that libel and slander are protected speech? So I am free to make any claim about you, and you will not in any way seek compensation for damages? That's quite a statement! If so, please let me know, and I'll start generating all kinds of wild and crazy stories about your exploits.

Incidentally, by your same benighted token, I could howl that you are trying to censor me by urging me to leave the rest of "us" (by which, I take it, you mean "people who like to believe in quasi-medical fantasies") alone.

If only these fantasists would stop peddling their fraudulent wares and services, then I would be all too happy to leave them alone.

[Celebration]

34. not trying to censor you

Of course libel and slander are not protected because in that case you are damaging the reputation of a person. But if you are going to ban incorrect information from being published, remember that it is our elected officials that would decide to enforce this. And guess what would be deemed incorrect? Anything that goes against campaign contributors................or keeps that person from being reelected. It would be used to silence people. If an idea that is published is not valid, the consumer will find out soon enough. That is far better than our elected officials ordering the prosecutor's office to start the wheels turning, or book burning. I cannot believe that anyone would want that.

You can say what you want here, but I don't think you would find many here who would want an administration like this to have so much power. The implementation of that idea would frighten me beyond anything else you have said here. I am hoping that you just have not thought it through. Do you know the history of book burning in this country?

[trotsky]

29. Free-market

Sheesh, it scares the hell out of me to hear "healthcare" and "free market" used together.

If I buy a new detergent and it doesn't clean my clothes very well, gee, I guess I'll have to try something else. I can take my time, not feel pressured to get something RIGHT NOW. Cripes, even if the detergent ruins my clothes, it's just clothes. I can get new ones.

But healthcare? No, you don't always have time or the opportunity to choose treatments at your leisure. And picking the wrong treatment doesn't always mean "no harm done, let's try something else." When lives are literally at stake, I don't want to play the market game. Give me what is shown to work.

[Celebration]

30. and it scares the hell out of me

To think that people appointed by OUR PRESIDENT could make health care decisions for me. There is nothing scarier than that.

[Orrex]

32. I'll tell you what scares the hell out of me

It's otherwise rational people who embrace any quack theory they come across regardless of the idiocy of the claim or the strength of the evidence against it.

I had hoped that these otherwise rational people would help us exit the political wilderness we now endure. Instead, they're campaigning to substitute green tea for chemotherapy, and they kick and scream whenever someone has the nerve to ask for evidence.

That's what scares the hell out of me. The idea that grown-ups would cling to these cure-all patent medicines instead of moving to embrace rational, empirical anaylsis.

Too bad. It would have been nice to have allies in the fight against ignorance. Certainly the forces of ignorance have plenty of champions of their own.

[trotsky]

33. WTF?

Who says I am advocating that?

There's a middle ground, you know. It doesn't have to be only "consumer gets to pick anything they want" or "the government chooses everything for you".

Sheesh. All-or-nothing mindset.

[Celebration]

48. just a reminder

That with regulation, there are regulators, and they have a whole lot of power. And I may not agree with them, and you may not agree with them. We are stuck with their decisions, and their boss generally can be bought with money. One only needs to look at our federal government as an example. So I would certainly err on the side of less regulation, and less power in the hands of people I may not trust (and I do not trust the current boss, for sure) and more power in the hands of the consumer.

[trotsky]

50. I guess what it all comes down to is, who do you want to trust.

A) People who want to make money but have no controls over them whatsoever (alties).

B) People who want to make money but have to back up what they say with science (normal medicine), and have to go through institutions that I get to change with my vote.

[Celebration]

58. You forgot C)

I trust myself.

[trotsky]

64. I don't trust myself to know everything.

So I'm amazed at your statement.

[Celebration]

66. Since when

Is knowing everything equivalent to trusting oneself? These are two different things. I may trust myself to choose a model of car by reading Consumer Reports and talking to my friends with various models. That doesn't mean I know how to tune the engine.............I may trust a certain mechanic but that doesn't mean I know how to do his job.

Your statement makes no logical sense.

I know who I don't trust--anyone whose boss is our president.

[trotsky]

67. So as long as Bush is president, everyone in the government is evil, huh?

Sorry, I don't paint with broad brushes.

See, you proved my point with your example. You can't just trust yourself - you have to trust Consumer Reports, or your friends, or your mechanic. You don't have the knowledge to trust yourself on every topic conceivable - at some point, you have to defer to someone else's knowledge, in whom you have to place at least a modicum of trust in order to accept what they say and move forward.

[Celebration]

69. Huh?

This is getting ridiculous. You are completely mixing up "trust" with "knowledge" and "not trust" with "evil."

You are attempting to put words in my mouth. I never said anyone was evil and I never said I had complete knowledge.

I may trust Consumer Reports, and you may trust Consumers Digest. Get my drift? This has nothing to do with complete knowledge. You may trust the FDA, and I may trust recommendations from friends. There may be reasons to trust either and reasons to mistrust either. You may trust one mechanic and I trust another. That doesn't mean either of us has any greater amount of knowledge than the other, or any less.

Please try to make sense.

Sure we defer to other's knowledge and experience. I have not problem with that. But where we differ is WHOSE knowledge and experience we defer to.

I look at a whole lot of different things when I choose a medical treatment, for example. I may look at what the FDA says, I might read the MEDLINE abstracts, I may ask friends, I may ask my family physician, I may then look at the costs, the benefits, the known side effects, I may look at online surveys, I may interview some health care professionals, I may read some magazine articles. All of these are authorities of one kind or another. I do not have as much scientific knowledge as some of them. What I do is synthesize all of the above and come up with a plan. I trust myself to be able to do this. If you want to defer ONLY to the FDA, then that is your perogative. I don't pretend that we will always come up with the same answer. Nor do I claim that mine will always be the *right* one, because there are always implicit probabilitites and statistics involved. What I am saying is that I don't want YOUR solution to this to be MINE, and I don't want MINE to solely belong to the FDA. I trust myself, using all of these (and more) sources, to come up with MY own solution. If you want to trust Quackwatch, and I don't, then so be it. That is fine with me, and it should be fine with you.

[trotsky]

70. Hehe, yeah it's ridiculous alright.

Ridiculous that you don't see you are trusting someone else virtually all the time.

I may look at what the FDA says,
(Trusting that it's accurate)
I might read the MEDLINE abstracts,
(Trusting that it's accurate)
I may ask friends,
(Trusting that they're accurate)
I may ask my family physician,
(Trusting that she/he is accurate)
I may then look at the costs, the benefits, the known side effects, I may look at online surveys, I may interview some health care professionals, I may read some magazine articles.
(Accurate, accurate, accurate....)

All of these are authorities of one kind or another.

Bingo!

I do not have as much scientific knowledge as some of them. What I do is synthesize all of the above and come up with a plan. I trust myself to be able to do this.

Here is where you're failing to see something. You have already placed your trust in those individuals and organizations to have given you the accurate information on which you now make your decision. Your decision-making process can only be as good as the information it's based upon.

[Celebration]

72. keep in mind

That the very authority figures that you trust often disagree with each other. Look at all the split decisions in the FDA. So does that mean you *always* go with the majority? That seems.....................not so smart. Factors other than scientific knowledge must enter their decisions, right? Or else, they would always agree!!

Yes I trust myself to synthesize a number of opinions, even minority ones from the FDA.

[trotsky]

73. You bet they disagree.

It's called science. The degree to which you can trust someone should correlate with the degree to which they can support their claims. Science, not pseudo-science, lets us try and make this process as objective as possible. (I.e., that's why double-blind studies have more credence than testimonials.)

But please, get rid of your libertarian red herring for these kinds of discussions. No one is proposing that you be "forced" to accept only one treatment or one type of care.

[Celebration]

75. not a red herring at all

I think there are people here that would want to outlaw chiropractors. Yet they are the only ones in my city that use an FDA approved treatment--low level laser therapy. Competition among health care providers is a good thing for patients (consumers). I can go to a chiropractor if I want to, and can avoid if I want. And science isn't always clear--if it were then all scientists would agree on everything, and they don't. And I bet they ALL say that they are supporting their claims with scientific evidence. And, hey, I don't mind trying things that have yet to be proven, like low level laser therapy *before* it got FDA clearance (HORRORS). I wouldn't force it on you though.

[trotsky]

76. Here's the rub.

Do you support the idea of health insurance, either private or single-payer, funded by government?

Because if you do, then it's not just your money that you're choosing to spend on your healthcare options. You are spending others' money, too.

You do not get to make these decisions in a vacuum and not affect anyone else. It just doesn't work that way outside of libertopia.

So ultimately, others are going to be involved in your health decisions, unless you simply pay for everything out-of-pocket. How do you propose we determine what treatments are the most effective and warrant payment, if you don't get to be the sole arbiter?

[Celebration]

77. that is the rub--I agree

Just think of all the Ritalin and psychoactive drugs (not even approved for ADHD) that my insurance dollars are paying for!!

Our health care system is so totally broken I generally don't even try to deal with it. I certainly trust the insurance companies to try to deny anything expensive, whether proven or not.

[trotsky]

79. Let's not sidetrack this.

Ritalin is an old medication that has been proven to work for many individuals.

I certainly trust the insurance companies to try to deny anything expensive, whether proven or not.

And that's not a problem with our health care system, just its funding. But it's a problem either way. We can prolong life for a long, long time. If you have limitless funds, we can do it. But should we? When funds are limited, and if your super-expensive treatment means that ten people won't get their kidney transplants? Regardless, that's another sidetrack.

[Celebration]

80. Ritalin

I agree, I guess I don't mind paying for that even though I would try a ton of different things first before resorting to it. It doesn't seem that safe to me. But I wholly and completely object to paying for the schizophrenia drugs for ADHD. I guess kids are prescribed those when some react to the Ritalin by seeing and feeling insects crawling on them. So should my insurance plan pay for this for them--I don't think so. And they haven't been proven for that condition, either, so you probably agree.

[HuckleB]

95. At that point, there is a serious question of diagnosis.

The underlying cause of concentration issues may mean that atypical neuroleptics may provide necessary treatment for some. For others an SSRI may be more beneficial in treating the underlying issue. And, yes, psychotropic medications are generally overused in children.

[Orrex]

86. "I think there are people here that would want to outlaw chiropractors"

That may be the case, but FM Arouet666, Warpy, Trotsky, BMUS, and I have not advocated the outlawing that you suggest. I can't speak for anyone else, but AFAIC snakeoil peddlars of any stripe should be outlawed, whether they're selling a Zapper or an "energy" therapy. In essence, such criminals are marketing based on unverified claims intended to prey upon the hopes and desperation of the credulous.

If a chiropractor sells his service as a means to clear up one's "subluxions," for example, then he or she is certainly making an unsubstantiated claim and should be held accountable for it.

It's not a matter of "they really believe it" or "the patients really feel better afterwards," nor is it an opportunity to invoke the famously over-invoked placebo effect. Making an unsubstantiated claim, regardless of whether you really believe it, is fraudulent, even if you don't intend to commit fraud.

And science isn't always clear--if it were then all scientists would agree on everything, and they don't. And I bet they ALL say that they are supporting their claims with scientific evidence.

Do you know anything about the scientific method? I'm asking sincerely, because these two statements suggest a gross misapprehension of the way scientific understanding is advanced. It's not enough for one guy to "prove" that his technique works--his claims must be corroborated by others, through rigorous and repeated testing under controlled circumstances. The fact that scientists don't all agree on everything is, in reality, a great strength of science, rather than a failing.

I don't mind trying things that have yet to be proven, like low level laser therapy *before* it got FDA clearance

You seem to think that skeptics are claiming that FDA approval grants some kind of miraculous "it really works" status to a medical practice. That's not the case. What we're saying instead is that, lacking controlled scientific study in support of a medical claim, that claim can not honestly and with confidence be asserted to be true. "Alternative" practitioners know this, and that's why they offer tons of effusive but technically useless user-testimony in support of their claims, rather than scientific evidence that they simply don't have.

You seem also to think that there's something nefarious going on because this laser therapy is currently only available in your area through chiropractors. Well, I can't get my transmission overhauled at the Jiffy-Lube, so should I therefore infer that there's a great anti-transmission conspiracy at work?

[Celebration]

87. more of the same

Re: scientists not agreeing-- sure, it is fine. And when they don't agree on something, I make the choice, okay, not a 17-16 vote of some committee, all of whom say science backs them, if you don't mind. Furthermore, if I want to try something that a friend recommended, with gusto, and with little scientific backing, I wholeheartedly assert my right to do so.

Let me reiterate that there are fraud statutes that apply to what you call snakeoil salesmen. If you don't like the way it is enforced take it up with the state attorney general.

There is certainly no conspiracy that LLLT is not offered by physicians here, or many physicians anywhere, and I never claimed there was. What I do assert is that physicians in general do not readily embrace innovative techniques that are useful and even proven, due to time pressures, and inertia, and lack of pharmaceutical reps. That doesn't mean they conspire to do it. That's the way they act--they aren't compelled to act that way, and they don't conspire to act that way. They just do (as a general rule--there certainly are exceptions). A good way to correct that is by consumer demand (me going to a chiropractor as an example).

Of COURSE LLLT works the same whether it is proven or unproven. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT. I first tried it when it was "unproven" and it worked, and was later "proven" to work. LOL. So I guess I was stupid to try it since it was unproven, right? I don't think so. It is kind of a joke because of course in Sweden and Italy and Russia it was "proven" to work years earlier. Meanwhile diabetics in the USA continue to lose limbs without having access to this "proven" remedy. (In truth here it may not yet be yet "proven" for wound healing in the USA--however, it is "proven" for wound healing in other countries). It is not a conspiracy--but whatever it is, it is dumb. Really dumb dumb dumb. And I refuse to be a part of dumb.

[FM Arouet666]

90. I don't agree.

Alternative medicine takes in billions of dollars each year, surly some of that could be used to fund research. But research is not desired, it may place unsubstantiated claims in a compromising position.

Interesting apology for the alternative med proponents, no one is forcing the consumer to buy the stuff, it is a free market, people make money doing many things? Sorry, exploitation of a patients ignorance should not be an accepted practice. Most of alternative medicine is nothing more than modern day snake oil. The most egregious offenders, homeopaths and chiropractors.

As for the fraud business, yes some have run afoul of the law, but the law is exceedingly lax. Alternative medicine is not held to the same standard as verified medicine. And again, I cannot accept the alt med canard implicating big pharma or the AMA in some grand conspiracy to keep miracle alt meds from the public.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

3. Memory enhancement?? I think it was vinpocetine, but now I

forget exactly...... :)

On Edit to include some truth:

www.alternativemedicine.com

www.Bastyr.edu
EDUCATION
Bastyr offers a range of graduate and undergraduate programs including naturopathic medicine, acupuncture and Oriental medicine, nutrition, health psychology, exercise science and herbal sciences.

HEALTH CARE
Bastyr Center for Natural Health offers quality natural health care to the community while providing essential clinical training for students.

RESEARCH
Bastyr research evaluates natural medicine practices and has played a key role in the growth of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research in the United States since 1986.

www.lef.org

www.nutritionfocus.com

www.Martekbio.com

www.Efamol.com

www.Americanutra.com

www.glycoexpert.com

[Celebration]

4. Bastyr U.

My daughter lives in Seattle and her primary care physician through her insurance plan is a graduate of Bastyr. The state of Washington requires that insurance companies include NDs (Bastyr is a four year post graduate program). She is really happy with this guy--I found him by calling up Erchonia laser and finding out what practitioners in Seattle owned this device. I had such great experiences with LLLT for various things.

She sings this guy's praises. He is also a chiropractor but rarely uses that. The latest is that she went to a dentist for tooth pain and everything came back inconclusive. But when she went to the ND/DC, he put a glove on his hand, and went into her mouth and did a rolfing type technique on the muscles inside her mouth, correcting TMJ. Two "treatments" and she was fine. He used the laser, too.

I would put LLLT into the "alternative" category at this point because hardly any MDs use it. However, as far as I am concerned, and studies, it seems proven for many conditions.

http://www.laser.nu/

She goes to MDs when she needs to of course.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

5. In many instances, the need for medications has been greatly

reduced or eliminated through the increased intake of glyconutrients, fyi.

[Orrex]

9. Citation, please

Anecdotal and testimonial evidence are insufficient to support your claim. Can you post a link to the studies that demonstrate the effectiveness of glyconutrients in this regard?

[HysteryDiagnosis]

49. Oh geez...... if you want the thread locked sure.

www.glycoscience.org

www.glycoscience.com

[trotsky]

52. 3 minutes of Internet research yields...

# whois glycoscience.org
Registrant Name:Mannatech, Inc.
Registrant Organization:Mannatech, Inc.
Registrant Street1:600 S. Royal Ln.
Registrant Street2:Suite 200
Registrant Street3:
Registrant City:Coppell
Registrant State/Province:TX
Registrant Postal Code:75019

Mannatech:
http://www.mlmsurvivor.com/mannatech.htm
http://www.mlmwatch.org/04C/Mannatech/complaint.html
http://www.ncahf.org/articles/j-n/mannatech.html

Color me "not impressed."

[HysteryDiagnosis]

53. Color you, uninformed.... and that's probably ok for now. n/t

[trotsky]

55. Sorry to shine a light of truth.

Mannatech is a profit-making company with a history of fraud and abuse. If Mannatech were making Vioxx, you'd probably point to them as a prime example of what's wrong with "big pharma." But since they are telling you what you want to hear, you don't want to look at them critically. So be it.

[HysteryDiagnosis]

56. You couldn't be more wrong and that is probably ok at this point. n/t

[HysteryDiagnosis]

57. Google stem cells glyconutrients, and then tell me if you would

read a book written by twenty (20) fully degreed medical doctors on the topic of glyconutrients. My guess is that you would not.

Results 1 - 10 of about 21,200 for stem cells glyconutrients. (0.53 seconds)




http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0973731702/sr=8-1/qid=1143509507/ref=pd_bbs_1/104-6381053-3439159?%5Fencoding=UTF8
The Healing Power of 8 Sugars: An Amazing Breakthrough in Nutrition, Sciences and Medicine by Allan C. Somersall (Editor)

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." Arthur Schopenhauer German philosopher (1788 - 1860)

This new book, "The Healing Power of 8 Sugars" clearly shows we are entering into the third stage in which the philosopher, Arthur Schopenhauer explained that a truth will become accepted as self-evident. In this new book twenty doctors combine their wisdom and explain for their fellow doctors and especially the layman how glyconutrients (natural plant sugars) are utilized by the body in the battle against disease.

"The Healing Power of 8 Sugars" covers many subjects ranging from the use of glyconutrients during pregnancy, to child development issues to sports medicine, inflammation and disease cases. The science of glyconutrients is very technical, yet these doctors do a remarkable job of bringing the science down to a lay level without neglecting the concerns and issues that will appeal to the medical and scientific audience as well. According to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Review, February 2003, "If you don't have glycosylation, you don't have life." Significantly, this book unlocks the mysteries of glycosylation (the adding of a polysaccharide (chain of sugars) to a polypeptide (chain of amino acids) in order to make a glycoprotein) and how glyconutrients are vital for this process.

As I read each chapter I would often think "that is the best yet." That is, until I started working my way through the next chapter. This book is absolutely remarkable and I predict it will become a nutritional best seller and one of the most important books of the year on nutrition. Maybe the most important of any year. There is a reason why The Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), which produces the highly respected MIT Review, released their February, 2003 issue entitled, "10 Emerging Technologies That Will Change the World!"

[trotsky]

62. Did I bash the science behind "glyconutrients"?

No, I did not. What is it with this all-or-nothing attitude constantly exhibited by the "alternative" supporters?

There is some promise behind this concept. Research is being done, but it's far from conclusive at this point. Right now the strongest evidence concerns yeast in a petri dish. There are massive libraries of studies that looked promising in the lab but didn't translate into actual human medicine. Time will tell.

What I am doing here is simply pointing out to you that the original website you linked to, is run by a company with a history of legal problems concerning fraud. In other words, THEY'VE BROKEN THE LAW BEFORE AND THEY WANT TO SELL YOU SOMETHING NOW. Doesn't that tell you to be a little bit suspicious?

When people have to resort to the old Schopenhauer quote, that usually tells you they're up to no good. As Carl Sagan once said, "But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown."

[HysteryDiagnosis]

88. This company has rescued hospice patients, restored kidney

function, returned eyesight, normalized T-Cell counts, vastly improved the quality of life for people with cystic fibrosis, cerebral palsey, lupus, chronic fatigue syndrome, gulf war syndrome, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, fibromyalgia, and a host of other ailments. If they sell something that does this, then God bless them, bring it on.

[trotsky]

92. Oh, so there are double-blind studies supporting all this?

Would you happen to have links to support those claims?

Strange that they would be sued for fraud by sick people, if they're working all these miracles.

[RedOnce]

6. Palcebo effect - "scientifically verified medicine" confirms it's power...

and then for the most part ignores it's use!

Alternative medicine makes effective use of placeo effect. Also, something like 80% of all medical problems are self limiting anyway, so does it really matter who you see for the minor stuff?

Some of yesterday's "alternative medicine" becomes today's allopathic medicine i.e. acupuncture and vitamins. Does that mean that acupuncture and vitamins were ineffective before they were proven or accepted by allopathic medicine? Of course not! So, who knows what tomorrow will bring?

Most of us grew up as part of a captive audience of allopathic medicine. How did some of our health care dollars slip from allopathic medicine's grasp? Well, it's simple, allopathic medicine changed - the molecules may have improved but the patient care and interaction got much worse and the costs skyrocketed! If alternative medicine tried this there would be no alternative medicine, so they pay attention to the patient and keep their costs inline.

Tenacity and a lot of money are required to scientifically prove something. There is a much greater profit potential for bringing a new drug to market via. "Big Pill" than to do studies on alternative medicine. So, guess what we study! And many "Big Pill" studies fail before we find a new pill that's safe and powerful enough to actually beat placebo effect!

The good news is that alternative treatments does not often cause direct harm and they're often inexpensive in comparison to conventional treatments.

I wish we could say the same about allopathic medicine. "It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US." See Death by Medicine:

Death by Medicine

By Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD

Something is wrong when regulatory agencies pretend that vitamins are dangerous, yet ignore published statistics showing that government-sanctioned medicine is the real hazard.

A group of researchers meticulously reviewed the statistical evidence and their findings are absolutely shocking. These researchers have authored a paper titled “Death by Medicine” that presents compelling evidence that today’s system frequently causes more harm than good.

This fully referenced report shows the number of people having in-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs to be 2.2 million per year. The number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections is 20 million per year. The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million per year. The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year.

The most stunning statistic, however, is that the total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is an astounding 783,936 per year. It is now evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the US. (By contrast, the number of deaths attributable to heart disease in 2001 was 699,697, while the number of deaths attributable to cancer was 553,251.

http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm

Trauma? No contest. Take me to the nearest Trauma Center.

Surgery? Maybe, if there is a pressing need after getting a second opinion.

Docs & nurses are bad? No, docs and nurses are good, but the system is broken.

[trotsky]

7. There's a reason for that.

Intentionally using the placebo effect is unethical. Deliberately prescribing a placebo is really no different than lying. It makes a lot of "traditional medicine" doctors uneasy to outright lie to a patient. Many "alternative" practioners apparently have no such qualms.

[RedOnce]

10. Well, Dr. Brown appears to disagree with this concept:

Dr. Brown is Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Brown University Program in Medicine, Providence, R. I., and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston.

Harnessing the Placebo Effect

MIROSLAV BACKONJA, WALTER A. BROWN
Brown University

Words as Placebos:

...I believe that there are circumstances under which physicians should encourage the use of alternative treatments. Physicians who find that advice disturbing should remember that the disorders for which conventional medicine offers definitive, powerful treatment represent a minority of the afflictions that beset humanity...

With many chronic conditions, conventional treatments are incompletely efficacious and often have significant side effects. Those are the conditions for which people tend to seek alternative medicine. To my mind, the theories underlying many forms of alternative medicine are unconvincing, at best. Nevertheless, in many instances, the use of alternative medicine makes sense...

On the other hand, physicians who understand the placebo effect can minimize patient defections to alternative medicine...At times, encouragement may be at odds with informed consent...Given what we know about the placebo effect, one could speculate that assuring the patient that the outcome will be good may reduce the patient's stress level. This, in turn, may lead to a more stable physiologic state that enhances the likelihood of a good outcome. In short, reassurance may be medically indicated in such cases....When offering reassurance, the physician needs to appreciate and accommodate differences among patients...Part of the art of medicine is to gauge the degree of information and independence appropriate for each patient.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=222x5656


Prescribing Placebos:

Should clinicians deliberately prescribe a placebo to patients? Many experts consider this an impossible dilemma. If the patient is told that the prescription is for a placebo, the patient's expectation of an effective remedy will be destroyed--and with it, the placebo response. If the placebo is presented as a pharmacologically active medication, the patient will be deceived. I believe the solution to that dilemma lies in a different view of placebos. If placebos are regarded as similar to other conventional medications in several respects--i.e., they are broadly effective remedies with incompletely understood mechanisms of action, and have both indications and contraindications--they can be offered honestly and plausibly.

The server is currently down. If you would like to read the entire article; Google: "Hospital Practice: The Placebo Effect" and click on the "Cached" link.

[trotsky]

11. Dr. Brown is being very careful with what he is saying.

I am not denying the placebo effect is very real. But its use has to be VERY cautious. If the doc knows your condition is psychological, and says that you should go visit the guy who waves incense in your face, and lo and behold your stress-related symptoms disappear, well what's to stop you from just going to the incense guy first thing, next time you get sick? Or referring friends & family to the incense guy? If the incense guy isn't very ethical (or maybe if he's a true believer in his placebo), he's going to snooker a lot of people who might just have a REAL condition that needs REAL treatment.

Placebo prescription should only happen when a doctor is absolutely sure a condition has a significant psychological component. Sometimes it needs to used in conjunction with "traditional" medicine, too, to make sure that both aspects of the condition are treated.

[RedOnce]

12. Ok, so let's cover alternative medicine with insurance, and require...

an allopathic screening prior to beginning alternative treatments. Serious problems will be caught and we don't put the poor docs in an uncomfortable ethical bind regarding the use of placebo. End of problem.

Btw, a lot of people are snookered by allopathic medicine with unnecessary antibiotics, unnecessary medical and surgical procedures, and unnecessary hospitalization. See Death by Medicine up thread.

[trotsky]

13. "require an allopathic screening prior..."???

Are you kidding? How the heck could you enforce that?

Clearly the placebo treatments would become known, and frauds would simply set up shop and offer the services direct. The danger of people seeking placebos first and delaying (or foregoing) conventional treatment is far too real. There is no simple answer here. That's why it's an ethical dilemma.

Your red herring about the problems with allopathic medicine is an issue unto itself and has nothing to do with the topic at hand. Best summed up by "two wrongs don't make a right."

[RedOnce]

15. Simple, get screened or the insurance doesn't pay...

for the alternative treatments.

What placebo treatments would become known?

I'm simply saying that insurance would cover your choice of a menu of alternative treatments if you get an allopathic screening screening first to rule out a more serious problem.

The problems with allopathic medicine are far less a red herring than your concern over the dangers of alternative treatments. Please show some documentation for damage from alternative treatments that is even within an order of magnatude of the Death by Medicine numbers.

[trotsky]

17. Insurance doesn't pay for them today, and people still use them.

Cost obviously isn't an obstacle. And if you're a fraud, your *actual* cost to provide treatment is very, very low, so you don't have to charge much to make a lot of money.

And I can't call your bluff, for the simple fact that no one knows just how many people went to quacks and frauds and got hurt, because they're not required to report damages like legitimate medicine is.

[Orrex]

14. An endorsement of "alternative healers" is an endorsement of hucksterism

an allopathic screening prior to beginning alternative treatments. Serious problems will be caught and we don't put the poor docs in an uncomfortable ethical bind regarding the use of placebo. End of problem.

That's just the beginning of the problem, in fact. You propose that we give the "alternative" practitioners license to use placebo, which is just as unethical as if actual doctors do it. Prescribed deliberately in place of an efficacious medical treatment, a placebo is unethical unless the patient is informed that it's a placebo. Far from solving the problem, your proposoal would be a formal endorsement of the bogus practices of quack healers.

You're also requiring actual doctors to implicitly refer their patients to quack healers, unless you require the quack healer to prove the effectiveness of their wares and unless you also allow the doctors to disclaim that almost all of the quacks are charlatans, deliberate or otherwise.

And I guarantee you that if a real doctor finds a tumor, and the patient then dies after visiting an "alternative" "healer" instead of an oncologist, that patient's family will sue the shit out of the referring doctor for failing to pursue effective treatment options.

Btw, a lot of people are snookered by allopathic medicine with unnecessary antibiotics, unnecessary medical and surgical procedures, and unnecessary hospitalization. See Death by Medicine up thread.

So, instead of requiring unethical doctors to behave ethically, you're saying we should allow "alternative" practitioners to "snooker" people, too? Well, I have news for you--they already do. Almost the entirety of the "alternative" "medicine" industry is based 100% upon snookery. When pressed, advocates of "alternative" "medicine" like to complain about the high cost of double-blind studies and what-have-you, but in fact what they're doing is preserving the "anything goes" free-for-all that "alternative" practitioners currently enjoy (and from which they profit hugely, by the way).

[RedOnce]

18. See post #10.

I am not proposing "that we give the "alternative" practitioners license to use placebo..." They already have the right to use placebo, and they do.

If it has been determined that a patient wants to get well and other treatments have failed...then I submit that it is unethical to withhold placebo. Placebo effect is real and powerful and is as effective as many pharmaceuticals. See post #10.

I am "requiring actual doctors to implicitly refer their patients" to no one. I'm simply suggesting that insurance would cover your choice of a menu of alternative treatments if you get an allopathic screening first, to rule out a more serious problem. This is a concept that you helped me develop, I surprised that you didn't recognize it.

If "a real doctor finds a tumor"..he should deal with it, not refer the patient out to alternative treatments

So, instead of requiring unethical doctors to behave ethically, you're saying we should allow "alternative" practitioners to "snooker" people, too? NO! I'm saying that both systems have their problems and that allopathic harms and kills far more people than alternative. If you disagree please provide documentation.

"from which they profit hugely, by the way" Oh please, the profits of alternative medicine aren't even in the same ballpark as Big Pharma and Big Medicine. Not even close!

...To be continued later. I have to go to work now.

[trotsky]

19. I call bullshit.

I'm saying that both systems have their problems and that allopathic harms and kills far more people than alternative.

You're making the claim, YOU back it up.

[RedOnce]

36. As you accurately point out, alternative medicine is not regulated...

therefore statitistics are not regularly compiled. However this is changing:

BBC - 25 June, 2002
The World Health Organization is to monitor the safety of traditional and alternative medicines. The move follows a number of deaths linked to their misuse. This can be down to use of the wrong medicines, or to using medicines in the wrong way. WHO experts hope to establish a global monitoring system within four years....Similar systems are already in place for conventional Western medicines.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/2064808.stm

This is typical of how it has gone, a few deaths make the news and an herb or treatment is then pulled off the market and there is an outcry for regulation. For example (from the same article) "A dozen people in the US died because of problems with the Ephedra plant."

But, it would certainly take a lot of these incidents to manage to add up to the 783,936 deaths per year shown in Death by Medicine. Don't you think?

[trotsky]

39. So in other words, you're using argument from ignorance.

"I don't know how many people altie medicine kills, and have no way to find out, but I'm sure it's less than this other number."

Okey dokey.

[RedOnce]

41. I documented the allopathic side so, what's your assessment on the

alternative side - more, less or the same?

[trotsky]

42. See my post #40.

You have provided highly flawed "documentation."

[Orrex]

22. A placebo by any other name would smell as unethical

I am not proposing "that we give the "alternative" practitioners license to use placebo..." They already have the right to use placebo, and they do.

They have the right to behave deliberately unethically? Maybe so, but they should include that fact in their advertisements. Instead, they gamble that their victims' desperation will keep the victims from probing the practitioners' methods too deeply. That's both predatory and unethical.

If it has been determined that a patient wants to get well and other treatments have failed...then I submit that it is unethical to withhold placebo. Placebo effect is real and powerful and is as effective as many pharmaceuticals. See post #10.

I've seen post #10 several times, as well as Trotsky's devastating reply to it. What's your point?

I had hoped to bring up this following point in its own thread, but this seems like a good place, since it directly refutes your falsehood that "Placebo effect is real and powerful and is as effective as many pharmaceuticals."

Placebo effect has never been shown to have any effect upon physical condition except in one of the two following cases:

1. The condition is entirely emotional/perceptual, such as stress or pain (accepting that pain is a neurological state that can be treated separately from the underlying injury or illness). In other words, the symptom is the condition being treated.

or

2. Healing of the condition is prevented by the persistence of a symptom described above. For example, an ulcer resulting from stress might be improved through use of a placebo that results in reduced stress, or illness that's prolonged by sleep deprivation might be improved if sleep can be induced through placebo.

Placebo has never cured an illness, never set a broken bone, and never repaired a torn muscle. If you cite a study showing that placebo did cure an illness, you must demonstrate that the statistical likelihood of this "healing" is greater than spontaneous remission or simple recovery (that is, recovery without medication, as from a cold).

We've all seen that episode of MASH where they ran out of morphine, and it's a lovely fairy tale that bears little resemblance to reality.

Next time you hit your thumb with a hammer, eat a sugar cube and tell yourself that it doesn't hurt. I'm sure that you'll be just peachy.

I am "requiring actual doctors to implicitly refer their patients" to no one. I'm simply suggesting that insurance would cover your choice of a menu of alternative treatments if you get an allopathic screening first, to rule out a more serious problem. This is a concept that you helped me develop, I surprised that you didn't recognize it.

I may need to retract my statement in that other thread. Upon further consideration, I realize that any screening system in which a doctor's visit sends a patient to an "alternative" "healer" is an endorsement of that "healer's" methods. And if the insurance carrier covers "alternative" practitioners, then that's an explicit endorsement of their non-verified methods.

How do you propose the "screening" might work, by the way? My doctor sees a shadow in my x-ray and says "You have tuberculosis and should check into the hospital," but instead I go to my acupuncturist. Why the hell should insurance cover that? Why shouldn't it cover the cost of having my house painted, which would be just as effective as acupuncture in curing my illness?

Where, exactly, do you draw the line between referral to "alternative" practitioners and referral to actual doctors?

If "a real doctor finds a tumor"..he should deal with it, not refer the patient out to alternative treatments

Really? Have you ever been to a doctor? My general practitioner isn't an oncologist, so I wouldn't want him to treat my tumor even if he's the one who found it.

NO! I'm saying that both systems have their problems and that allopathic harms and kills far more people than alternative. If you disagree please provide documentation.

Yet another red herring, as you're well aware--perhaps we'll start calling them "RedOnce Herrings" instead. Since the "alternative" "medicine" industry is unregulated, there is no statistical data to demonstrate how many have died in seeking "alternative" treatments. Instead, we have only the carefully selected positive endorsements of the industry, which is the very height of intellectual dishonesty.

Why don't you provide me with the documentation showing how many people have actually been cured by "alternative" "medicine?" Of course, personal testimony is insufficient--we'll need to see controlled, scientific studies demonstrating the efficacy of the "alternative" treatments.

What's that? There aren't any? Well, what a surprise.

Oh please, the profits of alternative medicine aren't even in the same ballpark as Big Pharma and Big Medicine. Not even close!

Relative to the demonstrated efficacy of actual medicine versus "alternative" "remedies," I'd say that the disparity is not nearly as great as you'd like to think. But that's hardly the point in any case--"alternative" practitioners are profiting from methods that have never been shown to work in controlled studies, but you somehow tolerate this because it's not quite as profitable as actual drugs that have been shown to be effective.

If you went after "alternative" practitioners with half the vigor you devote to your attacks on actual medicine, you'd decimate that quack industry in short order.

[RedOnce]

60. Re: A placebo by any other name...

"They have the right to behave deliberately unethically?" Etc. These are your words and your conclusion, not mine.

"I've seen post #10 several times, as well as Trotsky's devastating reply to it." Here is Trotsky's reply:

Dr. Brown is being very careful with what he is saying.
I am not denying the placebo effect is very real. But its use has to be VERY cautious. If the doc knows your condition is psychological, and says that you should go visit the guy who waves incense in your face, and lo and behold your stress-related symptoms disappear, well what's to stop you from just going to the incense guy first thing, next time you get sick? Or referring friends & family to the incense guy? If the incense guy isn't very ethical (or maybe if he's a true believer in his placebo), he's going to snooker a lot of people who might just have a REAL condition that needs REAL treatment.

Placebo prescription should only happen when a doctor is absolutely sure a condition has a significant psychological component. Sometimes it needs to used in conjunction with "traditional" medicine, too, to make sure that both aspects of the condition are treated.

What is devastating about this?


The reason I posted "See post #10." to you, was in response to your post: "An endorsement of "alternative healers" is an endorsement of hucksterism"

In post #10 Dr. Brown a Clinical Professor of Psychiatry, Brown University Program in Medicine, Providence, R. I., and Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston states:

"...I believe that there are circumstances under which physicians should encourage the use of alternative treatments....To my mind, the theories underlying many forms of alternative medicine are unconvincing, at best. Nevertheless, in many instances, the use of alternative medicine makes sense..."

And he goes on to explain why.

Regarding your comments on placebo effect:
Not long ago there was absolutely NO scientific proof that supported placebo effect. This didn't seem to worry most clinicians, they were able to observe it's effects and it also played havoc with the researchers studies. Now there is some proof. Does this mean that placebo effect just started working? No, of course not. If this trend continues, there will be even more proof in the future.

"I may need to retract my statement in that other thread." OK, let me know once you decide.

I wrote:

If "a real doctor finds a tumor"..he should deal with it, not refer the patient out to alternative treatments"

forgetting how concrete can be. Sorry, by "deal with it" I meant refer to a specialist.

Regarding: "NO! I'm saying that both systems have their problems..." Please see my replies to trotsky.

Regarding: "Instead, we have only the carefully selected positive endorsements of the industry, which is the very height of intellectual dishonesty." You are jumping to conclusions here.

[trotsky]

35. By the way...

I'm going to say that you like to have sex with goats. If you disagree please provide documentation.

[RedOnce]

37. If 800,000/yr. were being killed by alternative medicine don't you think..

we'd be hearing more about it?

Sex with goats or not.

[trotsky]

38. Document your 800,000 claim.

Or retract it.

Oh, and by the way, some background info on "Death by Medicine"'s Gary Null.
http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/null.html

[Warpy]

21. The placebo effect, like the miracle, is not anything to count on

because too many people are simply not subject to it. I know because I'm one of them, and believe me, I would dearly love to take a vitamin or a harmless herb to treat my pain. Alas, they don't work on me. That's why it's unethical for any medical person to prescribe or administer a placebo.

If the placebo effect worked on 100% of the people 100% of the time, there would be no need for opiates, tranquilizers, antidepressants, sleeping pills, or any of the other medications to improve well being. Counting on the placebo effect is like counting on dumb luck, plus it does nothing for the underlying condition.

The placebo effect would only be worthwhile if we could harness it, to predict and enhance it. We can't.

As for the screamingly phobic "death by hospital," no treatment is guaranteed 100% safe, ever. Neither is getting out of bed in the morning. However, the scientific method has made the former as statistically safe as possible, and having the statistics on our side keeps us doing the latter.

[Celebration]

24. that's right

We all weigh the odds and we make our choices. I guess what we call "phobic" depends on our mindset. One example of an active placebo would be biofeedback--if a condition is mediated through the limbic system (and probably a lot are, though little is understood), biofeedback is a technique that can treat the underlying condition.

Just one example--headaches--

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15953302&query_hl=7&itool=pubmed_docsum

I would pursue neurofeedback if I had a kid with ADD, and avoid allergy treatment. Sad to say, even though it has been shown to work, very few MDs pursue that route.

LLLT devices have been given FDA clearance for shoulder pain, carpal tunnel, etc. etc. and how many MDs have them? How many people have even heard of them? Even though there are no legal barriers to their use, and they have satisfied the FDA, very few conventional MDs use them. That is reason enough to seek out someone who is cognizant of the latest techniques that can avoid taking pharmaceuticals--whatever their licensing.

So the argument of the original poster that things that have been shown to work are incorporated into conventional medicine are just wrong--no, not generally unless a pharmaceutical rep visits them with a newly approved drug.

[Orrex]

28. Innovation

So the argument of the original poster that things that have been shown to work are incorporated into conventional medicine are just wrong--no, not generally unless a pharmaceutical rep visits them with a newly approved drug.

Yeah, that's why doctors are still using techniques developed before World War II. Those pesky medicos won't even wipe their assess unless a rep from Big Pharma tells them to.

The OP wasn't claiming that every doctor incorporate every latest advance. That would be stupid and foolhardy, whether you're talking about a specialist or a general practitioner. Instead, the OP's point was that medicine that has been scientifically shown to work isn't alternative at all. That's true even if your local urologist doesn't have the latest robotic assistant for cardiac surgery; the methods and findings are consistent with actual medicine and are therefore part of actual medicine.

[Celebration]

47. Categorization

Ok, so low level laser therapy for shoulder pain is not alternative because it has been approved for adjunctive treatment by the FDA.

Fine, I don't care if you label it alternative or not.

I first had it done when it WAS alternative, before it was approved. Guess what? Sudden approval by the FDA did not suddenly make it any more effective than it was prior to approval.

Moreover, when you look at the practitioners of LLLT, at this point, they are in the categories of what you would probably label alternative practitioners--mostly chiropractors.

Now it is true that some few MDs have them and use them. But generally, if I want low level laser therapy treatment, chiropractors that have these devices are much more common than MDs. In my city, there are no MDs with low level laser therapy devices, and to my knowledge, no physical therapists either.

How you want to label this situation--I don't care. I don't care much about chiropractic adjustments, but I would certainly go to a chiropractor to get this approved unalternative treatment that MDs have not generally adopted.

I consider this situation good for the health care industry because I am able to choose practitioners. Oh I don't doubt that in a decade or so maybe doctors will be able to send their patients to physical therapists that have these devices. In my city, that has not happened.

[trotsky]

40. The truth about "Death by Medicine"

http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/null_hypothesis_laidler.html

Pretty much what I suspected.

3. In deriving his numbers on "bad outcomes", Mr. Null adds all types of adverse outcomes together without considering
(either through ignorance or intent) that many of these are not due to medical error or other failure but are merely the
natural consequences of the disease or injury. Infection, for instance, is usually not due to medical error but is a natural
risk of surgery, injury and disease. The question NOT asked is this: "How many of these adverse outcomes would have
occurred WITHOUT medical intervention." Let me give some examples.

Example 1: A patient develops a skin infection following surgery for an inflamed appendix. This infection is treated with
antibiotics and resolves over 7 - 10 days. This would be reported as a post-operative infection on the hospital statistics.
However, without surgical intervention, the patient would likely have died in 7 - 14 days of a ruptured appendix and
overwhelming peritonitis - another sort of infection.

Example 2: A patient comes to the hospital with chest pain - the diagnosis is myocardial infarction ("heart attack") and he is admitted to the ICU. Two hours later, he dies of heart failure. This is reported as an in-hospital death. He almost
certainly would have died at home without medical intervention, but his death is "credited" to the hospital because that is
where he died.

Example 3: A patient goes to her doctor's office complaining of a severe sore throat and gets a prescription for an
antibiotic. Shortly after taking the first capsule, she develops a rash. In the emergency room, she is diagnosed with a mild
allergic reaction to the antibiotic and sent home with a different antibiotic. This is reported as an adverse drug reaction
(ADR).

Plenty more documentation of Null's questionable stats and methods at the link.

[Orrex]

43. Excellent excerpt!

I'm pleased that my own assessment of the "Death by Medicine" data is largely borne out by more detailed analysis.

Hey, I once drank some green tea, and a friend demonstrated Reiki on me a few years back. Can I now attribute to those "alternative" treatments any malady I subsequently develop?

I smell a lawsuit!

[RedOnce]

44. OK, this and all studies can be criticized. Please provide a better study

[trotsky]

46. Why is it my job to do your research?

You made a claim, that ~800,000 deaths a year are caused by hospitals, doctors, etc. Your "proof" of this claim has been exposed as a statistical handjob. Either prove actual evidence supporting your claim, or rescind it.

[RedOnce]

51. I said "If 800,000..." Here are more studies for you to attack.

Medical Errors - A Leading Cause of Death

The JOURNAL of the AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION (JAMA) Vol 284, No 4, July 26th 2000 article written by Dr Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH, of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health,

Medical errors may be the third leading cause of death in the United States.

The report apparently shows there are 2,000 deaths/year from unnecessary surgery; 7000 deaths/year from medication errors in hospitals; 20,000 deaths/year from other errors in hospitals; 80,000 deaths/year from infections in hospitals; 106,000 deaths/year from non-error, adverse effects of medications - these total up to 225,000 deaths per year in the US from iatrogenic causes which ranks these deaths as the # 3 killer. Iatrogenic is a term used when a patient dies as a direct result of treatments by a physician, whether it is from misdiagnosis of the ailment or from adverse drug reactions used to treat the illness. (drug reactions are the most common cause).

http://www.cancure.org/medical_errors.htm

Is US health really the best in the world?

JAMA. 2000 Jul 26;284(4):483-5.
Starfield B.

Department of Health Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health, 624 N Broadway, Room 452, Baltimore, MD 21205-1996, USA. [e-mail]

PMID: 10904513

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10904513&dopt=Abstract

Preventing Death and Injury From Medical Errors Requires Dramatic, System-Wide Changes

The National Academies - Date: Nov. 29, 1999

WASHINGTON – Reducing one of the nation's leading causes of death and injury – medical errors – will require rigorous changes throughout the health care system, including mandatory reporting requirements, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine (IOM) of the National Academies. The report lays out a comprehensive strategy for government, industry, consumers, and health providers to reduce medical errors, and it calls on Congress to create a national patient safety center to develop new tools and systems needed to address persistent problems.

The human cost of medical errors is high. Based on the findings of one major study, medical errors kill some 44,000 people in U.S. hospitals each year. Another study puts the number much higher, at 98,000. Even using the lower estimate, more people die from medical mistakes each year than from highway accidents, breast cancer, or AIDS.

Moreover, while errors may be more easily detected in hospitals, they afflict every health care setting: day-surgery and outpatient clinics, retail pharmacies, nursing homes, as well as home care. Deaths from medication errors that take place both in and out of hospitals – more than 7,000 annually – exceed those from workplace injuries.

"These stunningly high rates of medical errors – resulting in deaths, permanent disability, and unnecessary suffering – are simply unacceptable in a medical system that promises first to 'do no harm,'" says William Richardson, chair of the committee that wrote the report and president and chief executive officer of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Mich. The know-how exists to prevent many of these mistakes, and so the committee sets as a minimum goal a 50 percent reduction in errors over the next five years. The majority of medical errors do not result from individual recklessness, the report says, but from basic flaws in the way the health system is organized.

Health care is a decade or more behind other high-risk industries in its attention to ensuring basic safety. The chance of dying in a domestic airline flight or at the workplace has declined dramatically in recent decades...

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309068371?OpenDocument

Ways to minimize adverse drug reactions

Postgraduate Medicine

Jay S. Cohen, MD

According to a 1998 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), (1) more than 100,000 hospitalized patients in the United States die each year of adverse drug reactions, ranking the problem between the fourth and sixth leading cause of death. Another 2 million patients experience serious reactions, defined as requiring hospitalization, causing permanent disability, or resulting in death. The meta-analysis did not count less severe or outpatient reactions; the incidence could well be staggering if these are included.

Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA 1998;279(15):1200-5

http://www.postgradmed.com/issues/1999/09_99/cohen.htm

PREVALENCE OF MEDICATION ERRORS

Massachusetts Nurses Association - MNA Position Statement on Medication Errors

Results from studies in Colorado and Utah indicate medical errors cause death to at least 44,000 Americans each year. (IOM 1999) Another study reported in 1991 in New York State suggests the total (medical deaths) may be as high as 98,000 deaths nationally with medication errors accounting for up to 14,000 deaths annually.(IOM 99). Mason (1999) cites a 1993 study published in the Quality Review Bulletin stating that approximately one million medication errors occur annually with about 120,000 resulting in death. Bates et al (1995) (1997) in their Adverse Drug Event Prevention Study determined the overall rate of adverse drug events (ADE) was 6.5 per 100 hospital admissions with 28% deemed preventable. Leape et al (1995) revealed that in an additional 5.5% of patients, potential ADE’s were averted by chance or interception of an error.

Lazarou, Pomeranz, & Corey (1998) focused on two separate populations in their study. Included were those admitted to the hospital due to an adverse drug reaction (ADR) and those experiencing an ADR while hospitalized. They estimated that 106,000 hospital patients died in 1994 due to an Adverse Drug Event. This category includes error in all steps of a medication system. In addition to the human costs, research indicates that ADRs result in an additional 1.56 to 4 billion dollars in direct hospital costs per year in the United States. Even more alarming is the conclusion that ADR’s may rank as the fourth to sixth leading cause of death. (IOM 99)

http://www.massnurses.org/pubs/positions/mederrrs.htm

Good luck tracking down the exact number. But, what ever it is, it far too large.

[trotsky]

54. Hey, those are much more reasonable.

And a far cry from your initial claim. I'm sorry if you think that telling the truth is "attacking" your false claims.

Certainly we should strive for no deaths due to mistakes, but your alarmist attitude and total unawareness of the risks of non-allopathic care are reason to doubt just about anything you say.

Good luck tracking down the exact number.

Hey, as I mentioned before, at least evil nasty horrible doctors and their nurses and hospitals are REQUIRED to report this stuff. Quacks and frauds are not. Get some numbers and we'll compare, eh?

[RedOnce]

59. Great, I'm glad you approve of these!

"And a far cry from your initial claim.

As you know, I never claimed ~800,000 that claim was make by the author of the study. I didn't do the study.

Just in case you forgot, the bottom of my 1st post reads:

Docs & nurses are bad? No, docs and nurses are good, but the system is broken.

[trotsky]

63. "The system is broken"?

Should we strive for zero unnecessary deaths? You bet.

But if don't have zero, does that mean the system is "broken" and that alternatives are always going to be worthwhile?

[RedOnce]

65. Yes, "Approach allopathic medicine cautiously while our system is broken..

for ordinary people but use it if you need it. That's the best advice I can give as an insider." Warpy

Here is the whole quote:

Warpy
Docs have faced the same speedup that nurses got hit with

in the late 1980s. They now have to see at least twice as many patients in order to keep the same income in terms of purchasing power. That makes them as rushed as they were when they were interns and residents and in the meat grinder known as a teaching hospital. They aren't blowing you off, they really don't have the time to make nice. They need to read your lab work and do the examination and write the report.

Your best defense if you get sick enough to require medication is to do your homework on Medline or other sites so that you KNOW what to expect in side effects and what constitutes an adverse reaction that would cause you to stop taking the medication. Your best defense here is education. Prevention Magazine, however, is not education. Sorry about that.

Your best defense should a doctor determine you need surgery is a second opinion. Tell both docs you are looking for a second opinion (but don't tell the second doc what the first doc said). If they agree, then you probably do need the surgery.

Your best bet should you be hospitalized is to have friends and family who are willing to take turns sitting with you. Staffing is so awful in most hospitals that formal visiting hours have been abandoned and are used as an excuse to send exhausted family members home for a nap or to evict misbehaving visitors. Nurses recognize that a family member at the bedside can be their first alert that something has changed in a patient's condition.

Our system is broken and you are right to be cautious. However, rejecting the whole system and crawling off to die if you have a serious illness is just plain silly. It still works more often than it doesn't, and the statistics are still in your favor. All tests and treatments have a risk versus benefit equation, and the statistics all favor benefit. There is always risk, however.

Approach allopathic medicine cautiously while our system is broken for ordinary people but use it if you need it. That's the best advice I can give as an insider.

See post #42: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=222&topic_id=4245#4289

[trotsky]

68. That isn't what I asked. Quit being dishonest.

I asked:

But if don't have zero (unnecessary deaths), does that mean the system is "broken" and that alternatives are always going to be worthwhile?

[RedOnce]

71. Dishonest? No, sorry. It was Warpy's quote that I had in mind...

when I first posted...

Docs & nurses are bad? No, docs and nurses are good, but the system is broken.

We will obviously never achieve zero deaths. But I think that the The National Academies article that I posted makes the answer clear:

"These stunningly high rates of medical errors – resulting in deaths, permanent disability, and unnecessary suffering – are simply unacceptable in a medical system that promises first to 'do no harm,'" says William Richardson, chair of the committee that wrote the report and president and chief executive officer of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Mich. The know-how exists to prevent many of these mistakes, and so the committee sets as a minimum goal a 50 percent reduction in errors over the next five years. The majority of medical errors do not result from individual recklessness, the report says, but from basic flaws in the way the health system is organized.

Health care is a decade or more behind other high-risk industries in its attention to ensuring basic safety. The chance of dying in a domestic airline flight or at the workplace has declined dramatically in recent decades...

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309068...

The article makes it clear that the rate of errors, deaths, disability and suffering are unacceptably high. And it makes it clear that the system is the problem; "The majority of medical errors do not result from individual recklessness, the report says, but from basic flaws in the way the health system is organized." Leading to the conclusion:

Yes, the system is broken.

[trotsky]

74. Once again, that's not my question.

I give up asking it now. You have your mind set on attacking one point, and it's not even the point I'm making, so forget about it.

[RedOnce]

78. Your question is poorly framed. So let's break it down:

"if don't have zero, does that mean the system is "broken"

I addressed this thoroughly in the last post. We will never hit zero, but we are well above where we should be. It is therefore implied that some number a bit more than zero but well below where we are is the best that we can achieve. At that point we won't be at zero and the system won't be broken.

Did you really fail to understand this from my last post?

"and that alternatives are always going to be worthwhile?"

I ignored this because it is ridiculous to link the two and I thought you were being sarcastic. How does having one system broken mean that the other will always be worthwhile?

As a separate question. Are alternatives are always going to be worthwhile? Probably some of them. Certainly not all of them. Testing will weed them out, but it will take time.

[trotsky]

81. It was framed in response to your stance, so of course it's poorly framed.

Sorry I forgot the "we" as the second word. "If we don't have zero..."

We will never hit zero, but we are well above where we should be. It is therefore implied that some number a bit more than zero but well below where we are is the best that we can achieve. At that point we won't be at zero and the system won't be broken.

So, what's the point? When do we declare the system isn't "broken" anymore? You are setting up an unreachable goal. People - even alternative medicine quacks (!) - can make mistakes.

Did you really fail to understand this from my last post?

I fully understood it. You aren't seeing the implications.

I ignored this because it is ridiculous to link the two and I thought you were being sarcastic. How does having one system broken mean that the other will always be worthwhile?

That is exactly what you were implying. Since the current system is "broken," then we must use alternative medicine. Go back to your post #6 and your effusive praise of "alternative medicine" and incessant bashing of allopathic. And now, even though your source for the condemnation of allopathic medicine has been debunked, you continue the claims.

[RedOnce]

83. Touché!

"You are setting up an unreachable goal."

Not true. Better performance than we are currently doing is clearly achievable.

"These stunningly high rates of medical errors – resulting in deaths, permanent disability, and unnecessary suffering – are simply unacceptable in a medical system that promises first to 'do no harm,'" says William Richardson, chair of the committee that wrote the report and president and chief executive officer of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Battle Creek, Mich. The know-how exists to prevent many of these mistakes, and so the committee sets as a minimum goal a 50 percent reduction in errors over the next five years. The majority of medical errors do not result from individual recklessness, the report says, but from basic flaws in the way the health system is organized.

Health care is a decade or more behind other high-risk industries in its attention to ensuring basic safety. The chance of dying in a domestic airline flight or at the workplace has declined dramatically in recent decades...

http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.nsf/isbn/0309068...

They know what to do and they have a 50 percent reduction target. Adjustments will need to be made after that to establish an acceptable working range. But that range will be lower than where we are.


"That is exactly what you were implying."

No. It isn't.

[trotsky]

85. Then what exactly are you saying?

I mean, if you're arguing there are problems, you won't get much argument from anyone. So what's the deal? What else are you trying to say?

[Warpy]

82. Nice job of reading a headline and ignoring the rest

If you want to use me to win an unwinnable point, you might want to read my posts a little more carefully.

You're making a royal mug of yourself.

Our system is broken because of the way it's funded, honey.

Fund it properly and it will WORK.

[RedOnce]

84. Yes, I agree. What did you think I was saying?

[FM Arouet666]

91. Bingo

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Mark Twain

[philb]

101. The main references are top U.S. medical journals like JAMA

http://www.flcv.com/iatrogen.html

[HuckleB]

105. References are funny things when used out of context.

[Odin2005]

16. Fortunately, I'm an Atheist.

So I just laugh at any people that talk about "balencing mystical energy fields" or other such quackery.

[bemildred]

45. I don't believe in much of anything.

Most everything we have scientifically verified was unverified at some not too distant point in the past, so the fact that something is unverified now doesn't imply anything in particular about it's efficacy or lack of it. If good studies have been done, that is indicative of objective fact, otherwise you are on your own, and even then your knowledge is statistical, not particular to anyone specific. And it is worth keeping in mind that organic systems are far more complicated than we can understand in any determinate way, given our limited brainpower and unfortunate tendency to be swayed by emotion, and the tendency of systems to become unpredictable as they become more complex.

[beam me up scottie]

61. What a train wreck.

And as usual, critical thought is the hapless victim whose body parts are scattered everywhere.

Nice try, Doc, maybe they'll find a cure for ignorance, anti-intellectualism and superstition someday.










Oh wait, they already did...it's called education.

[FM Arouet666]

89. Notice I didn't bother responding.

I may read some of the responses tomorrow, when I am more rested. Sometimes I like to bash my head against the wall, clears the sinuses.

[HuckleB]

93. In other words...

you have no response.

[beam me up scottie]

94. Nope.

Orrex, trotsky and Warpy pretty much covered it.

[HuckleB]

96. So what's with the meaningless cliches?

[Orrex]

97. self delete

[beam me up scottie]

107. I thought they'd annoy you.

:eyes:

[FM Arouet666]

108. Perhaps it is time to sign off of DU

Two weeks of continuous work, stress, and death. Continue the good fight, I am getting tired of the debate. Two more posts to 2000. Y2K disaster? Peace...........:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

114. I hope you're not leaving DU, Doc.

I take occasional breaks from this place, maybe that's all you need.

I miss you already.

[FM Arouet666]

115. I was getting close

But maybe not, perhaps a good high colonic will do the trick. It has been suggested before in this forum, the colon is the key to good health. A load of poop perhaps. :evilgrin:

[trotsky]

116. I highly recommend one of these, too.

Your frustrations are solely due to parasites, bad karma, and quantum dissonance harmonics.

[beam me up scottie]

117. Oooooooooooo!

How tech-Y!

It looks like an iPod impostor.

Of course that makes sense, it's made by a person who is impersonating a scientist, after all.

[FM Arouet666]

118. Your killing me ;)

:rofl:

The most advanced zapper on the market? Three zappers a zapping, two orgone generators a gasming, and a sylph in a chem trail...... Sounds like a nice little christmas ditty. I feel better already. ;)

[philb]

98. Health is a matter of avoiding toxic exposures & getting good nutrition

mostly; if one does this, keeps the immune system strong, gets good nutrition, gets regular stretching and exercise,
there is little need for medicine. Medicine is mostly for emergancies.
And almost as many people are harmed by poorly practiced medicine as are helped, according to the statistics.

Many doctors treat people with chronic conditions that have little knowledge about how to cure the condition.
People should shop around more based on evidence of what type of treatment is most often effective for their condition.
Though not all respond similarly to either toxic exposures or treatments.

There seems to be a shortage of information about the percentage of success treating conditions by different doctors and
different types of treatments. But it would be better if people had more knowldege of the likelihood of success of different options.

Most chronic and degenerative conditions are documented in the medical literature to be caused by toxic exposures
autoimmune, cardiovascular,endocrine(hormonal),metabolic, immune, etc. So the most important issue is proper testing.

Testing is very important and these days there is an abilitity to test very accurately for most conditions.
Blood immune reactivity tests(like MELISA: www.melisa.org) are available to test for what is causing autoimmune conditions like
MS, Lupus, Thyroiditis, eczema, rheumatoid arthritis, scleroderma, etc. Tests have found mercury and nickel to be the most common causes, but there are also other factors in some.

Most common chronic degenerative conditions involve significant liver disfunction, and test such as comprehensive liver detox
test(for example: www.gsdl.com which uses blood,urine,and saliva samples) can usually provide useful information in dealing with such conditions.

Many chronic problems involve metabolic blockages of the ATP Krebs energy cycle and other enzymatic processes, which can be tested for using a fractionated porphyrin (urine) test. Most big labs do this.
I've posted references about these before.
The test indicates level of metabolic blockages and the pattern of the porphyrin waste products indicate the likely toxic exposure responsible for the condition.

A hair element test is also useful and inexpensive way to determine toxic metal exposures, which most have, and to determine essential mineral imbalances which are present and a factor in most chronic conditions.
www.doctorsdata.com or www.gsdl.com or www.bodybalance.com

Electronic tests have progressed also to the extent they offer a cost effective way to screen for toxic exposures, immune reactivities, allergies, and other conditions.

Treatments of most chronic conditions usually involve detoxification of the underlying cause of the condition, and
are usually effective in alleviating the problem. Proper nutrition is also important both in avoiding illness and recovery from illness.

[HuckleB]

99. Are Detox Products Shams Or Do They Really Do What Their Promoters Say?

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/healthnews.php?newsid=40392

[Orrex]

100. Shams. Or was that a rhetorical quesion?

[HuckleB]

104. At this point, it's quite rhetorical in nature.

[philb]

102. Detox works if you do it right; people with chronic conditions generally

have significant improvements; as is documented by lots of studies and clinical experience.

I'm a coordinator of a patients support organization with coordinators in most states and other countries.
Thousands with chronic conditions contact us each year for information. Through our interactions we find most who do proper detox, improve. And there are lots of options that are helpful.

BioCleanse/Ioncleanse footbath(epsum salt with ionizer)
Natural cellular defense(mywaiora.com)
porphyrzyme/cilantro/upregulation
colonics
immune boosters(Shaklee,Mannatech,astragalous,etc.etc.)
betanite clay
N-acetylcysteine (if you don't have high free cysteine levels)
chlorella/cilantro
nutritional support, antioxidants
coffee enemas(Gerson therapy)
etc.

Chemical chelation can be helpful in acute or chronic conditions if carefully done(start slow, work up, nutritional support)
DMSA or DMPS for toxic metals (IV or oral)

EDTA can be effective at detox and improving clogged arteries, but I would do something else first to reduce mercury for
those who have significant mercury burden.

there is a lot of documentation of before and after medical lab tests for how much toxic metals are eliminated by many of the treatments, its easy to measure such and its been done for most of these considerably.

everyone wants to make a buck these days, so some exagerate; but there is a huge amount of clinical cases for many of these
and organizations like ours and web sites like remedyfind and etc. monitor and compile what works.
It would be good if there was more such effort.

And we've documented many thousands of recovery by getting rid of toxic exposures & detox

[HuckleB]

103. Where are these studies?

And who is we?

[FM Arouet666]

106. So there!

Blatant kick. Perhaps an alternative kick?

[varkam]

109. You're quite right

I know, too, that certain forms of alternative medicine do have identifiable benefits (and mechanisms of those benefits). You mentioned accupuncture, which to my knowledge, activates our endogenous opiod system which in turn exerts analgesic effects.

But I would be careful, however, to place too much stake in the scientifically rigorous field that is main stream medicine today. I honestly believe it's the best thing we've got going, but it too, is not free of exploitation.

[Orrex]

110. This misses the point

Acupuncture--the traditional practice--involves the manipulation of the body's energy field or "chi." To date there is no empirical data (by which I mean absolutely zero) empirical evidence supporting the existence of chi, much less its manipulation by an acupuncturist's needles. Traditional acupuncture claims to be able to cure infections and to heal illness solely by correcting or balancing or improving one's chi-flow. This is a metaphysical claim and has no place in actual scientific medicine.

Proponents of traditional acupuncture can claim that it's still a valid practice, but it is entirely up to them to prove that this is the case. Instead, they invariably claim that it is the skeptic's duty to refute their claims. That's simply incorrect.

The more modern reformulation of acupuncture is thought (and there is some empirical evidence to support this) to yield some benefit in the treatment of pain, perhaps by releasing endorphins or by interrupting nerve flow. If this is true, and if it can indeed be supported by repeatable empirical observation, then this aspect of modern acupuncture may be considered actual medicine.


The big mistake comes when proponents of traditional acupuncture cite the release of endorphins as some kind of "proof" that the traditional remedy actually works as described. That's nonsense, obviously. It is equivalent to saying, because modern hematology involves the study of blood drawn from one's veins, that thee traditional practice of bloodletting is borne out by modern evidence. That's likewise entirely unfounded, but no moreso than the claims of traditional acupuncture.

[varkam]

111. Ahh I see. I did miss the point.

With respect to traditional practicioners of acupuncture - yes, you're absolutely correct. I was mistaken in assuming that you were taking up the claim that alternative therapies can help people. As far as theoretical underpinnings are concerned, you're right in claiming that there is no evidence to support the existence of 'chi'.

[Orrex]

112. No problem--it's an easy distinction to blur

It comes up here every week or so, and it's always worth revisiting as long as there's any lingering ambiguity!

:hi:

[varkam]

113. As long as I'm here...

there's probably always going to be lingering ambiguity :)