How do you feel about alternative medicine?
Years of lobbying bu producers of worthless supplements, demonization of government regulation and the irrational human need to believe in magic resulted in the signing of the by President Clinton in 1994. This bit of idiocy has resulted in all sorts of wild and baseless claims being made by various scam artists at the exspense of frightened Americans with various illnesses. Money is spent needlessly, real empirically tested treatments are seen as tricks of the evil medical industry and the suckers get burnt. What is needed is close regulation of all medicines and supplements on the market by impartial government agencies but with the cows out of the barn and way down the road it may not be possible to get them back. Just another public health nightmare courtesy of the Ayn Randian belief in the magic of the market place coupled with the Age of Aquaris belief in magic beans.
#1 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 5:25 PM EDT...and I believe, Singe, that to be taken seriously one's spelling should be up to snuff and sentences should make sense.
One of our basic rights, as intelligent human beings, is or certainly should be The Right To Choose without repercussion or judgment being passed. The medical industry IS evil just as an alternative treatment can be a scam.
Unfortunately most "Vitamin" makers import their products from China....so yeah...its a problem. We know pharmaceuticals produced in China have similar issues....If imported pharmaceuticals from China are escapeing FDA scrutiny....you know supplements are risky. Self help in the herbal/nutrient world is shaky at best. If one purhases supplements from a health food, grocery, or drug store.....you are taking an enormous risk.....Better to obtain assistance from a holistic healer who has the education to guide and assist in natural healing and herbal/nutrient sources that provide natural, pure substances.....like me.
Linda,
No one is saying you don't have the right to choose therapies that have not been proven to work. However your premise that a "basic right as an intelligent human being" is not to have repurcussions or judgements that stem from your poor choices is ludacris.
You are free to make make bad decisions. And the reality based community is free to call you on it... as I am here.
Linda,
This isn't an academic forum. Go read an academic journal if you want perfection in spelling and grammer (and you wont even find it there). These threads are quick ways of getting out a point and sharing ideas. The point is all that matters in this highly abbreviated and truncated forum. Get over it, stop criticizing, and listen to the point being made. The most important part of communication is LISTENING.
And, by the way, you are missing several comma's in your statement.
I worry that this trash science will get into ObamaCare, I really don't want my tax dollars funding this nonsence.
Singe: What was it that Clinton signed? You brought it up, but never said what it was. It had better be good to support the rest of your rant.
Since you brought up presidential signing of things, I am much more disturbed by the fiascoes and wars that the Bush / Cheney gang and their lawyers signed.
Years of lobbying bu producers of worthless supplements, demonization of government regulation and the irrational human need to believe in magic resulted in the signing of the by President Clinton in 1994. This bit of idiocy has resulted in all sorts of wild and baseless claims being made by various scam artists at the exspense of frightened Americans with various illnesses. Money is spent needlessly, real empirically tested treatments are seen as tricks of the evil medical industry and the suckers get burnt. What is needed is close regulation of all medicines and supplements on the market by impartial government agencies but with the cows out of the barn and way down the road it may not be possible to get them back. Just another public health nightmare courtesy of the Ayn Randian belief in the magic of the market place coupled with the Age of Aquaris belief in magic beans.
#2 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 5:27 PM EDTSinge: What was it that Clinton signed? You brought it up, but never said what it was. It had better be good to support the rest of your rant.
Since you brought up presidential signing of things, I am much more disturbed by the fiascoes and wars that the Bush / Cheney gang and their lawyers signed.
Too many cancer patients are seen as transactions, yes there is "snake-oil" out there but the Federal Death Administration can't hinder big Pharma's money so most natural remedies are taboo. Use your head, common sense and research. America doesn't have the patent on cancer so there is not harm in researching the treatment that other countries use. Most countries use radiation/chemo but they seem to look at other options as well. Also think how many jobs and lifestyles would be affected if cancer became easily cured. You think stockholders, board members, presidents, ceos want to lose all that money on a multi-billion dollar industry?
#3 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 5:28 PM EDTYou hit it right on the button Chris L. The combination of natural remedies can eradicate most illnesses out there but without patent rights nobody wants to persue marketing it.
Absolutely - and isn't it a cute coincidence, that they started these studies 10 years ago - and just came out with this article JUST when Baby Boomers starting to hit retirement age?? I am not saying that everything can be cured naturally, or that medical breakthroughs don't do any good - but have you ever sat through a medication commercial? the cure is worst than the symptoms most times.
If you think about it - much of what plagues society can be cured with good diet and exercise. But with all the hormones and pesticides in foods, and our lack of wanting to exercise in order to ward off depression and anxiety - we are probably just doomed.
All I know if that if I ever have to kill cancer in my body or in my family - it will probably be in India as a medical tourist for 10% of what American hospitals would charge to save my life. Yikes!
I have relied on "traditional" Western medicine to deal with chronic illness for over 40 years. It hasn't worked; furthermore traditional Western-trained doctors know NOTHING ABOUT alternative medicine. Not all supplements are worthless, only those that are badly compounded and contain precious little of the components that are needed for good results. The same is true of "traditional" medicine. Mass marketing and the profit motive damages ALL medicine. Finally, I am being treated by MDs who understand alternative medicine and have found excellent well-made supplements that have solved my problems without giving me horrendous side effects. Some of my worst medical experiences and chronic conditions occurred as a result of being dosed with prednisone and other "traditional" medicines, so respected by the FDA. The long-time effects of my "traditional" medical treatments are now being ameliorated with alternative natural medicine supplements.
Finally, how often have "double-blind clinical studies" conducted by the producers of traditional medicines convinced the FDA to approve medications and treatments that were later withdrawn from the market due to the tremendous damage they did to so many patients who took them?
I completely agree with you.....amazingly all the news is staying away from the topic of Antixidants such as OPC3, ORAC and Resveratrol and that is what is working for me and many others that I know that have been successful getting off regimens of multiple pharmaceuticals....one in mind a young girl of 15 that was on 23 different medications and now nothing but nutraceuticals......people really need to wake up and get educated. I congratulate you on your response - well said.
As a current Cancer patient, I believe the fact that Doctors fail to explain options lead many to seek alternative medicine. I try to be informed and make very few decisions the first time I hear about it from my oncologist. Ultimately it is your health and you must take charge of it. Learn everything you can and make the most informed decision - don't let your doctor be a dictator. Ask questions, seek reports, talk with other patients, listen to your brain and heart.
#5 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 6:06 PM EDTI've done alot of reading and it seems to me most if not all Cancer treatments are no better than alternative medicine, both in practice and results.
Unless it's actually cutting out a tumor it all seems very much like snake oil and rattles.
I have no idea why someone with a life threatening disease would trust a stranger with no education in physiology, pathology, or pharmacology over that of their physician who has decades of training in these areas.
#6 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 6:11 PM EDTYours is one of the sanest arguments I have seen in a long while.
What concerns me about alternative "therapies" for various ailments is that many people use these for their babies and children without really knowing what the bottle contains.
I agree with you. However, there are plenty of alternatives that have been tested scientifically, and have proven to be effective. The biggest one is acupuncture. It's alternative, but it works. We've shown St. John's Wort to be an effective antidepressant-- as effective as Prozac, to be exact.
Nothing wrong with alternative solutions, it's more a matter of doing your homework. Look for studies that have shown it to be effective. How effective. What are possible side effects? Can it interact with something you're already doing? Too many people just blindly go into an alternative method, without doing any research.
Because physicians have motives, and they get too busy, just like other humans. So one patient's cancer may not be their only focus. They have many other patients and illnesses to consider. And people make mistakes, especially if they have a large number of patients to treat. So the only person who is guaranteed to spend the time necessary to really research all potential options is the patient. It's just too bad that the patients do not have the medical training that is essential to understand all of the options. But at least they can read about the options and learn which questions to ask their doctor or several different doctors, if warranted.
I'd like to know why more doctors do not tout the proven extensively researched benefits of healthier diets and lifestyles. Why do they not? If they really cared about patients, they would push fewer pills and try to change diets and lifestyles, IMHO.
#7 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 6:24 PM EDTVery few patients would ever be willing to actually make these kinds of tough lifestyle changes. A good physician will discuss these topics, but they also realize that the vast majority of patients will not act on the advice in the least.
Bingo, ct2446!
My ex has constant problems with back pain. Her doctor told her there were two choices... start taking massive painkillers that she would more than likely be addicted to all of her life, or start exercising. The doctor said he could almost guarantee that the pain would go away if she lost all of the excess weight that was making her obese.
Of course, she went with the painkillers. There was no way in hell that she was going to sweat for her health.
They do, but the patients don't listen. I can't make you eat a low calorie diet. I can't make you exercise.
It's become almost cliche' I really don't see how stopping smoking will fix my bad disks. I lost weight and every time I exercise I end up in bed for a week.. I'm not totally convinced they know what their doing.
But I have to go along otherwise they cut off my pain meds, Then all I have is suicide.
HazCats - Try starting slow. They probably have you doing what would be a reasonable workout for an athete, in terms of length and reps. If you've spent the overwhelming majority of your life being sedentary, it's not so reasonable.
Just do what you can without hurting yourself. If you feel like you were on the wrong end of a barfight when you wake up in the morning, you overdid it. Take a few days off, then start again with fewer reps. You'll find the "right" level for your current fitness, and when you do, just exercise maybe every other day or so at that level. As time passes and you become able to do more, slowly raise the amount of exercise you do.
A little delving into the research will show that survival statistics of "traditional" treatments (i.e. radiation, chemotherapy, surger) of most cancers have not improved since the "war on cancer" began decades ago. There ARE good, statistically proven alternative therapies that have been scorned by the Cancer industry and squelched by the FDA because their success would mean the loss of billions to those who currently make a profit off of people's fears. While traditional treatments may provide some benefits to those with prostate cancer, breast cancer and childhood leukemia, even those successes pale by comparison to what might be accomplished if the medical profession weren't so hide-bound by their own prejudices and profit motives. I have watched friends die from brain cancer, from breast cancer, from lung cancer, and from colon cancer -- all had chemotherapy/radiation/surgical treatment, and all died miserable deaths anyway -- after years of suffering from the side effects. Is is any wonder that people seek alternatives--and often fall prey to those who really don't offer viable alternatives? People should have a right to receive from their doctors the actual long-term survival statistics of traditional chemotherapy/radiation/surgery treatments (and I don't mean 5-year survival) on the kind of cancer they have, and then be able to choose whatever approach they want to, and not have to travel to foreign countries to get the kind they want. Personally, if I were diagnosed with cancer, I would NOT choose standard treatments but would make a bee-line to a clinic in Texas that offers an approach that, as a scientist, I can believe in -- and then accept responsibility for the outcome, whatever that might be.
#8 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 6:34 PM EDTIf you are going to make these kinds of claims you should probably post some kind of source material that shows the data.
I second that, ct2446. People should third and fourth it too. I have yet to see any solid evidence of any squelching, and dear god, survival statistics of western medicine have improved! My mother's sister died of childhood leukemia in 1960, before chemo existed. The survival rate for childhood leukemia is now 85%, up from almost zero!
What are these good, statistically proven alternative therapies that have been scorned by the Cancer industry?
If they are proven then they are not alternative. That's how medicine works.
Science cannot "prove" anything, only disprove. It is a subtle difference, but an important one.
Additionally, speaking as someone who has been formally trained in statistics... if you give me a data set, I can manipulate it to make it "say" pretty much whatever you want.
Educate yourself. No, anatomy, physiology, chemistry, etc. might not be the most interesting reading out there for most people, but it is a worthwhile investment of your time. Learn to be a savvy consumer of information. Whenever anyone makes a claim, ask yourself, "Does this make sense? Does this square with my own observations? Is this how the world works, in my experience?" If the answer is no, then don't be afraid to walk away. People would be a lot better off if they stopped relying on "experts" (many of whom are ideologically biased, have an agenda they're trying to push, or both) and instead focused on becoming their own expert.
It is the attitudes of most posters in this thread that epitomize the reasons why Americans are dumb. You people steadfastly refute thousands of years of natural herbal remedies and the intrinsic balance of nature, and choose to instead put all your faith in "modern" medicine that is not conducive to proper health.
In other words, allopathic medicine has a great track record for handling emergencies and trauma, but has a terrible record when it comes to disease management and prevention. Why? Because of the money. Period. Allopathic medicine does not place any emphasis in disease prevention or cures, but chooses instead to manage the problem with dangerous pharmaceuticals. Remember, 100,000 people die every year from PROPERLY prescribed medications!
Besides, before you go lambasting natural methods, remember two things........One, natural remedies are very subtle, and take time to work. They are not a magic bullet and do not produce immediate effects like pharmaceuticals, so I question most research methods that negate their effects....and two, where do you think our pharma industries get the ideas for most of their products?....the natural environment...........
For good information, check out the Life Extension Foundation website (www.lef.org). It is a non-profit organization (I've been a member for years) that provides current information on standard and viable alternative treatments for any number of diseases. I receive their periodical, but much of the information is also on their website. You need to search around on it a bit to get to the information you need. They cite extensive research sources. (They also have a Medical Advisory Board and a Scientific Advisory Board with outstanding qualifications.) Another source I've used, a more popular and easier-to-read one for a non-scientist is the Health and Wellness newsletter put out by Dr. Julian Whitaker of the Whitaker Wellness Institute in California. I frequently cross-check what I read as well, sometimes by going to the original sources. Both of these are general health -oriented, but occasionally they have articles about various kinds of cancer and the potential effectiveness of nutritional support and the effectiveness of both traditional and alternative treatments. I usually check out what I read on-line as well, just to see what other comments might be available. I recommend membership in the Life Extension Foundation for anyone who is concerned about their health and about getting pharmaceutical-grade nutritionals.
#9 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 6:58 PM EDTRule of Thumb: Information on a website that is trying to sell you something may not be completely reliable.
I was referring more to peer reviewed journal articles that have a meta-analysis comparing different treatment options. This is what I would truly consider to be evidence.
Julian Whitaker is a snake-oil salesman of the highest magnitude. For every imaginary claim he makes, he has something he can sell that will miraculously cure you. It's amazing that people are so willing to believe that the pharmaceutical companies are only in it for the profit, but aren't willing to ascribe the same same motivation to people who sell them magic beans.
In this specific case, I would suggest that the original poster research non-profit status. It does not mean that nobody can make a profit, it just means that the non-profit entity cannot show a profit at the end of the fiscal year. In other words, if there is $2 million dollars profit in the books at the end of the fiscal year, they must allocate that money elsewhere... elsewhere almost always being to the pockets of whoever runs the non-profit.
As an example, the President of the non-profit I work for makes $750,000 a year. I'm sure Julian Whitaker is also doing fairly well. The only difference is we sell something with actual value, while he sells false hope.
These allo therapeutic doctors are scared of natural medicine because they could spell the end of their career. There is big money and big business in conventional cancer therapy and anything that threatens it has to be destroyed at all costs even peoples lives.
The success rate of their treatment is really not that good. They talk as though they cure all cancers when most of the time people end up dying from their cancers anyway.
They are not in the business of finding a cure for cancer but perpetuating it for business sake.
#10 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 7:20 PM EDTI can see that by the term 'allo' you're a fan of homeopathy. You can keep your voodoo magic 'medicine' to yourself, thanks.
If you think the only options are "treatments that work, but not always" and "my alternative medicine which has NEVER been proved to work", you're a fool.
This post is so bizarrely paranoid that I can hardly respond. I do not know a single oncologist that would not welcome a cure for cancer. There is more work than doctors can handle.
Show me an alternative treatment that cures anything.
To ct2446. The Life Extension Foundation is a non-profit organization. They provide extensive supportive documentation with peer-reviewed articles from reputable professional journals for all their reports and recommendations. I questioned them initially, because they do make pharmaceutical-grade products available to their members at discount prices, but I have gained a great deal of respect for their highly professional and scientific approach over the years and do not question their integrity. Although Whitaker does sell some vitamins as well--and is for profit-- I have found he generally provides information on where products can be obtained from other sources as well. I understand that both LEF and Whitaker began selling products because of the unpredictable--and not infrequently inferior-- quality of many products from health food stores, Walgreens, etc -- I don't know about Whitaker, but I know LEF products are tested frequently by independent laboratories not affiliated with LEF to ensure they meet pharmaceutical-grade standards and are free of contaminants. And when it comes to vitamins, minerals, herbs, etc., quality and the correct form can be critical to getting effective results.
#11 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 9:52 PM EDTYes, many people are vulnerable to what anyone is trying to sell them. I know of at least one who asks her doctor for nearly every medication being sold by Big Pharma on television. I have read that because of TV and radio advertising, many doctors are pressured into prescribing drugs for patients who do not need them--particularly antibiotics which have now been so over-prescribed that we have bacteria that are resistant and pose very serious threats to health.. There are also physicians who tell their cancer patients that if they do not do exactly as they tell them, they are going to die. ( Who made them God? ).
Our health system is a disaster because patients do not take full responsibility for themselves -- but believe whatever they hear, whether from TV or their doctors. As cancer patient Celina B said so well earlier in this discussion, "Ultimately it is your health and you must take charge of it." That is a freedom--and a responsibility-- I believe we all should have. And that is why I think the FDA should be only an advisory organization - we would make a great deal more progress in health care in this country if it were.
#13 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 10:25 PM EDTI put my faith in empiricism. It may only give me a sense of what my odds are for various choices I might make but advice not based on it is always rooted in some magical belief or other. Doctor's that I go to talk in terms of odds...if you reduce your blood sugar by such and such your chances of experience this or that malady are....according to this or that study. I can't bring myself to listen to someone who just " knows" or "senses" that I should eat wheat grass or whatever and can get me a real deal on same. I have no idea why some people want to ignore some of the most amazing scientific discoveries of humankind because some other people are making money off them.
#14 - Mon Jun 8, 2009 11:44 PM EDTLOL it really is funny, we have the greatest life expectancy in the world yet fools are always trying to tell us to chuck our diet and way of life for foods and practices from some 3rd world hole where most people rarely live past 30
does this make sence to anyone?? well it must as look at all the fools who follow alternative medicne.
OK....I'm offended here, Haz. As a chiropractor, I spend my entire day teaching patients about proper nutrition and wellness lifestyles. Why? Because it's the ONLY way to prevent the potential onset of debilitating disease. It's a lot easier and less expensive to prevent disease, rather than to attempt to regain health once it has been lost.
You make the argument that the "fools" who are promoting natural diets are persuading you to live the way people do in 3rd world countries? Frankly, that's a very narrow view of healthy eating. Yes, we Americans live past 30, but that's because we have access to better emergency care, cleaner water supply, and have much lower population densities (which reduces infection communicability), etc. So yes, we live LONGER...but do we live BETTER? To this I would say, NO!
Actually, Americans do not have the longest life expectancy (it's Japan), and we are quite far down the list on mortality/morbidity comparisons. Most Americans are extremely unhealthy, as evidenced by obvious factors like obesity, debilitation, and the sheer amount of healthcare dollars that are spent per capita.
Now, as a chiropractor, do you consider me "alternative"? That's been the pigeonhole we been forced into for decades now, but considering that since 1996 there have been more visits to a chiropractor every year than those logged to an allopathic doctor, it's obvious that we're no longer "alternative", but instead quite mainstream. We have THE best record for patient satisfaction and efficacy (feel free to factcheck this!), so do you feel my patients are fools, too?
As far as herbal remedies go......it is not about voodoo or magic, it's just simply a back-to-basics approach to maintaining health. Anyone well-versed in these natural remedies should understand and teach to others that they are subtle in nature, and are not a fast-acting magic bullet. Can you cure cancer with herbs?......well, probably not in the majority of cases.....but don't automatically rule out the potential beneficial effects of herbs, either separate or in conjunction with western medicine. God knows our medications don't do a whole lot for cancer, either, so where's your argument? Of course, not all herbs are healthy, some have dangerous risks, and some can interfere with pharmaceuticals (and vice-versa)......but you would choose to ignore the potential benefits of certain herbs because they have not "been proven" in a Big Pharma-sponsored research article? As a healthcare "insider", I can tell you the research out there is extremely biased, and in many cases not reliable at all. I don't care what journal they are found in, it's all the same. Use common sense.
I hope this helps, though. Enough ignorance has been spewed about my profession because it "didn't have the research" in the past. Now we do have the evidence to support our therapies, and now it's the allopathic community that's fighting to catch up. Some day I predict the same will occur with natural remedies.......nature isn't imperfect, it's just not convenient enough for you.
Now we do have the evidence to support our therapies,
Then why not post links to the peer-reviewed scientific studies supporting it?
Wouldn't that be a far better way to support your contention?
but considering that since 1996 there have been more visits to a chiropractor every year than those logged to an allopathic doctor, it's obvious that we're no longer "alternative", but instead quite mainstream.
Argumentum ad Populum, and a strawman to boot.
There are a ton of Young Earth Creationists in the US, too. Does that mean the earth really is 6000 years old? Moreover, the definition of "alternative" has nothing to do with the relative OR absolute numbers of adherents, but rather whether the methods/treatments have actually been scientifically tested (repeatedly, within the peer-reviewed literature) for both safety and efficacy.
check out:
www.simonsingh.net
Ichthyic, now considering I supported your nauseous argument with PR above this thread, you could do better to support mine........even if only for the sake of being a gentleman.....
Speaking about chiropractic......YES! I could post numerous links to peer-reviewed scientific literature, but I don't have the time to sit here and do this for every single person who wishes to discredit my post for "having a lack of supporting evidence". Bottom-line- I work for a living. I don't have the time. But if YOU do, then by all means, use your brains and spend some time looking it up yourself. For someone who prides himself in his own narcissistic intelligence, you shouldn't have any problems researching this on your own.....
As far as it being an 'argumentum ad populum', normally this fallacy holds true. But you missed the point. I was giving an example of something that society still considers alternative, but has become mainstream (hence, "normal") because of it's popularity. It was an issue of semantics over the use of the term, not the definition itself. I wasn't making an argument for the legitimacy of certain therapies due to its popularity, only the terminology itself. The rationale for chiropractic is not based upon its popularity, but rather the other way around......i.e., it is an effective form of healthcare, that's WHY it's so popular! You tried to use the ad populum fallacy against me, but that can only be legitimately used when someone tries to support that rationale for something based upon the idea "that since everyone else is using it, it must be true". That was not my point at all. Thanks for being so understanding. And you call me a strawman?
The definition of "alternative" has EVERYTHING to do with relative and/or absolute numbers of adherents! Since we're talking about healthcare, if a certain therapy is used often in society, then it can be considered mainstream. If it is not used within a broad scope, and therefore fewer people are using it, then most people would be inclined to call it "alternative", since it is the alternative to what is considered mainstream. This was an issue of alternative versus mainstream, not alternative versus legitimacy. Your argument is therefore false because you can find evidence of both alternative and mainstream therapies that do/do not have the supporting evidence.
Besides, as for your statement about safety and efficacy being used as the standards to determine if something should be considered alternative versus traditional, then you may be suprised to know that chiropractic care has long had some of the highest measures of safety and efficacy amongst all forms of healthcare. Now I know, I know.....in your pompous, egotistical mindset you feel the need to berate others for specific research articles and supporting evidence- again, I dont have time...but you can start by looking up articles in JMPT, JACA, Spine journal, the Lancet, etc........pretty much anything outside JAMA, which wouldn't publish a non-antagonistic article on chiropractic if their profession depended on it.......
So, Ichthyic, you would serve yourself and others better if you concentrated more on substance than semantics. Being intelligent doesn't give you the right to argue with others if you're not willing to apply a little more margin to other viewpoints, and have a little more humility.
Ichthyic, now considering I supported your nauseous argument with PR above this thread, you could do better to support mine........even if only for the sake of being a gentleman.....
If only science worked that way...
no, wait, that would be bad.
the rest of what you say is a continuing attempt to redefine what "alternative" actually means, and you're still wrong.
Being intelligent doesn't give you the right to argue with others if you're not willing to apply a little more margin to other viewpoints
shall we apply more margin to the idea that the world is flat, or maybe the idea that the world is only 6000 years old, or the idea that the moon landings were faked, you think?
no?
because otherwise, what you have there is nothing more than an argumentum ad populum, STILL, to support the efficacy of chiropractic. Which, btw, is pretty much the same argument creationists trot out to support their ideas, too.
sorry, I calls em as I sees em. Got nothing to do with friendship, or who supports who.
humility too, has nothing to do with it.
If you actually had the science on your side, you'd be able to link to it directly, and nobody would even be having this argument. In fact, if you could do that NOW, you'd still win this argument.
again, recommend you spend time arguing with the likes of Simon Singh.
I once read that in ancient Babylon a family might put a sick relative to lie outdoors on a pallet and wait for a passer-by who might say,"I had that same ailment and I did this, or that -- all to a good result." The Babylonians also had the healing goddess Gula, who served as patron to doctors. Her companion is a dog (my guess is to lick wounds). And they had doctors who had medical texts to follow and prescriptions to write.
Human beings seem inclined to try combinations of cures based on hearsay, divine intervention, standard medical practice and nostrums. I often marvel at how ready we are to trust one another with such equanimity. That's not a bad thing in itself. In any event, a person has to do the research, research on the disease and available treatments, research on the medical qualifications of the oncologist, research on the hospital where the procedures will be carried out, research on complemtary (not alternative) medical approaches. And if the person is too sick or frightened to do the work himself, then the task falls to a friend or to a member of the family to do the leg work.
Odds, for example, can be tricky. There is no history of breast cancer in my family --good odds. But, I am a female -- the odds change. Survival odds? That amounts to crystal-balling it even if done by a doctor -- I don't go there. My approach (says she walking around the pallet) is that I have a chronic disease. My goal is to live each day following a healthy diet, a modern medical regimen, a fitness program, hatha yoga and prayer.
#15 - Tue Jun 9, 2009 5:13 AM EDTCourse it might not hurt NOT to have your breasts irrated every year for no good reason, last I checked excessive radation caused cancer.
And it's been shown that those excrutiating mammograms can actually cause cancer cells to spread. I'll take my chances instead. I haven't been to an OB/GYN in 22 years, and that last time was to have a tubal ligation. My stepfather had skin cancer and went through massive amounts of radiation treatments, chemo and surgery. It wasn't the cancer that killed him, it was the MRSA infection he got in the hospital. Like I said, I'll take my chances and stay away from the doctor.
bull@!$%#.
www.msnbc.msn.com-id-5261683
substitute (/) for (-) to read the article.
Women who screen annually and are diagnosed with breast cancer die from the disease half as often as those who do not get annual exams
Our oncologist told us that the problem he has with alternative approaches is that there are no studies that he can rely upon to suggest one as opposed to another of the available approaches out there. Why isn't our government health bureaucracy sponsoring studies of these modalities.
According to our doctor, as well as many others, there is ample anecdotal evidence that alternative methods work for some people, just like conventional treatments work for some people. The idea that anyone has come up with a universal cure is ridiculous and to use that as the criteria to judge the usefulness, success, or viability of treatment modalities would mean that all conventional treatments are bogus. To imply that conventional treatments don't cause harm but alternatives do is disingenuous. What is needed is a legitimate impartial exploration of the many alternative modalities that have shown success anecdotally so they can be evaluated and used in conjunction with modern conventional methods. Two books of interest are "Outsmart Your Cancer" Tanya Harter Pierce, and "Cancer Step Outside the Box" Ty M. Bollinger. In a free country one must wonder why governmental authorities choose not to allow its Citizens to freely decide what to do about their own health rather than support the legitimate exploration of viable alternatives. In closing I found the article one sided and somewhat arrogant since it implies that the majority of people, 60%, are incapable of making good decisions when it comes to their own health and should rely solely upon health "professionals" inspite of the fact that "iatrogenic" (medically caused) death and injury is one of the leading problems in our health system today. Check out this URl
#16 - Tue Jun 9, 2009 12:28 PM EDTthere is ample anecdotal evidence
The plural of anecdote is not data. You're right that lots of anecdotes suggest an area that might be worthy of actual research, but it isn't research in and of itself, and is even less relevant than correlational data. Just to be clear, there is only ONE way to be sure something is safe and effective or not, and that is with rigorous scientific testing.
anything else is just a crap-shoot.
Testing costs money, a lot of money, paid for by the folks making the medicine. That's why the alt med people aren't having their stuff tested. They either won't or, more usually, can't afford to have their therapies tested.
That, and the fact that many alternative modalities have been studied. Most of those studied modalities have neither a plausible mechanism of effect, nor a efficacy measured to a significance beyond that of placebo or statistical noise.
Try to find an alternative modality, and search for it on pubmed, you'll very likely find it.
Proper studies are double-blind, placebo, controlled and independant. Some smaller very preliminary studies might be useful for plausability, but are only good teasers and then, only if they show some actual correlation indicating the null-hypothesis is not supported.
Most common herbs have a lot of large studies.
Oh, and to those of you that say herbs can't be patented, it's kinda wrong. Look at asprin (sort of). Companies make lots of money on that.
it's called natural selection. people gullible enough to fall for that stuff.........
#17 - Tue Jun 9, 2009 1:17 PM EDTany balanced human is likely to have a healthy dose of a combination of the four possible replies above.......there could have been better choices........some really amazing and some really heinous things are being done on both sides of the fence in this issue.......one group has controlled the western brainwashing machine, and wants to tighten that grip even further by outlawing everything it does not agree with........the responsibility to educate ourselves and the freedom to make choices must be protected, regardless........yes, that is a messy and "wild" pathway, but it is how the truth rises, and we are facing this shift in ALL our major systems, not just medical.......
#18 - Tue Jun 9, 2009 2:20 PM EDTI am a believer of combining alternative medicine with traditional prescription. Good doctors on both practices will recommend use that way. I have witnessed the reason why a western medicine did not work for a patient because of coloring painted on a pill. I am sure lab tested without those colors. It is well documented by some reseaches that bottles of supplements do not always contain what it describes. I do not like supplements without prescription other than vitamins. I prefer a prescription by an oriental med doctor who can diagnose and prescribe individualized mix of herbs to be taken regularly as prescribed; same discipline as traditional ones. This herbal prescription has worked for many people I know who were able to get help in the early stage of diseases (arthritis, stomach, kidney, or glaucoma). As long as a patient takes on a responsibility to share the info with both doctors and coordinate, monitor the progress, I believe it is beneficial. (I will be very skeptical of doctors who dismiss one practice or other ).
#20 - Tue Jun 9, 2009 4:46 PM EDTYou're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
Reeve's legacy: stem cell researchDoctor ordered to pay for unwanted babyCoping with a health crisis, one click at a timeGetting your body beach-readyMaine middle school to offer birth controlDNA study seeks origin of Appalachia's MelungeonsAfter poisonings, P&G to make detergent pods saferScreening finds skin cancer: Does it save lives?Pregnant women warned about antidepressantMore kids eating detergent packs, docs report
How many people die after traditional treatments? People have an absolute RIGHT TO CHOOSE THEIR TREATMENT -- this is just about getting $$$