# Alternative Medicine



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Note: To get straight to the point I want to get across, go to the last paragraph!

I am shocked by the blatant lies surrounding so called "alternative medicine".

Just saw an ad for the "Q-Link Pendant" ( http://www.q-link.ca/ ), a product designed to "tune up your biofield through a resonant effect that harmonizes your energy and helps you to navigate smoothly through a stressful world."

A year ago, like most people, I would have thought nothing of it (as I did when I saw the "Q-Ray Ionized Bracelet" ( http://www.qray.ca/ ), but today, skeptical inquiry is a bit of a hobby of mine.

The infomercial attempted to appeal to the "science-types" by featuring an expert from BioMeridian ( http://www.biomeridian.com/ ) who used some sort of "machine" (which reminded me a lot of the machine that scientologists use) to show how the Q-Link balanced your "energy".

When I investigated this company, I found they and their equipment was well known in the area of medical fraud, even though their equipment is "FDA approved".


From Quackwatch.org, an article on "Electrodiagnostic" Devices such as those made by BioMeridian:



> The devices described in this article are used to diagnose nonexistent health problems, select inappropriate treatment, and defraud insurance companies. The practitioners who use them are either delusional, dishonest, or both. These devices should be confiscated and the practitioners who use them should be prosecuted. If you encounter any such device, please report it to the state attorney general, any relevant licensing board, the FDA, the FTC, the FBI, the National Fraud Information Center, and any insurance company to which the practitioner submits claims that involve use of the device.




United States District Court
DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
Application and Affidavit for Seizure Warrant
Re: John E. Curran



> The "BioMeridian Stress Assessment" appears to be a variation on electrodiagnostic methods that are well-known forms of medical fraud. The procedure consists of grounding the patient, then using a probe to pass low levels of electrical current through the patient. Various dials connected to the circuit are then claimed to measure the status of the patient's health. However, *the resistance/current measured only reflects nonspecific effects such as how hard the probe is pushed against the patient.*


How do these companies get away with advertising this garbage on Television?????

YOU have to investigate all forms of "Alternative Medicine" before giving up your money. If you are currently using or are considering any form of alternative medicine (including popular ones such as Chiropractic, Homeopathy and Naturopathy), go to http://www.quackwatch.org/ and read the articles on it!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I'd be very careful including degreed Naturopaths in a "quack" column.
They have a full medical degree including the undergrad and graduate disciplines.



> Naturopathic medicine is a primary health care profession that focuses on prevention and uses natural methods to promote healing.
> 
> In Canada, naturopathic practice is regulated under provincial law in four provinces: British Columbia, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan. Regulation in Alberta under new legislation is expected this year. At present, naturopathic doctors (NDs) are the only health professionals in Ontario still regulated under the Drugless Practitioners Act of 1925.
> 
> ...


Just as there are questionable practices with mainstream doctors especially regarding drugs SOME alternative procedures might be questioned but just as with drugs a good experienced naturopath will not point you in that direction nor try and treat an acute condition such as a broken bone requiring traditional medical procedures.

Were the traffic two way we might have a healthier populace consuming far fewer drugs.
A traditional doctor gets at max 3 days of nutrition training, and we indeed ARE what we eat. They also get little in preventive medicine.

Naturopaths in Ontario ARE primary care Doctors and are designated as NDs...Doctor of Naturopathy.
http://www.oand.org/


----------



## guytoronto (Jun 25, 2005)

Some people will believe anything. And some of these quack products do help, via the placebo effect.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

You have to investigate all forms of "Regular Medecine" before giving up your health. As MacDoc said there are some questionable mainstream practices as well. Good advice to research first, but you seem hellbent on disproving anything out of the norm, whether alternative medicine or conspiracy theories. I prescribe you some LSD, a good book and a week in the woods.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> I'd be very careful including degreed Naturopaths in a "quack" column.
> They have a full medical degree including the undergrad and graduate disciplines.


I do not understand. You say they have a full medical degree yet their own association, which you quoted, says "Registered naturopathic doctors are required to complete three years of *pre-medical studies* at a recognized university" before heading off to their Quack Naturopath school.

Naturopathy is Quackery!

The Drugless Practitioners Act of 1925, as mentioned by your source, has barely been updated since 1925!

Rather than argue over their so called "regulation" which we all know is irrelevant anyway, lets look at specific things they do.

I'm sure they can give you some good advice about your general health and lifestyle, but the treatments they provide are largely without any basis in science.

From the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare Report on Naturopathy (1968) (little has changed since then)



> Naturopathic theory and practice are not based on the body of basic knowledge related to health, disease, and health care that has been widely accepted by the scientific community. Moreover, irrespective of its theory, the scope and quality of naturopathic education do not prepare the practitioner to make an adequate diagnosis and provide appropriate treatment


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

darkscot said:


> You have to investigate all forms of "Regular Medecine" before giving up your health. As MacDoc said there are some questionable mainstream practices as well. Good advice to research first, but you seem hellbent on disproving anything out of the norm, whether alternative medicine or conspiracy theories. I prescribe you some LSD, a good book and a week in the woods.


disproving anything out of the norm??? It's exactly the opposite! I tackle beliefs that people hold strongly without a rational basis.

If I am "hellbent" on anything it is to promote and defend reason, science, and freedom of inquiry, and encourage evidence-based inquiry into science, pseudoscience, medicine and health, religion, ethics, secularism, and society.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

jasonwood said:


> Naturopathy is Quackery!


Actually I'm going to take this back. Naturopathy ITSELF is not Quackery, by definition. But many of the things they do are.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

my chiropractor is also a naturopath
he is the only doctor i trust implicitly
he has solved many problems and is extremely proactive in his solutions from the time i tore ligaments in my ankle many years ago
the hospital put me in a cast for 8 weeks and then were looking to schedule me for therapy
i cut off my cast after a week and started visting him and (with the aid of a taped up ankle) i was walking 1/2 mile to his office after a week
to this day i visit him for various back ailments, especially during golf season

he recently prescribed for me a regimen of Scorbatate and liquid minerals
along with a diet low in red meat
i have yet to catch cold and when i follow my diet my allergies diminish to the point where i can actually smell things for the first time in 20 years, not to mention breathe through my nose without ANY drugs
my blood pressure and cholesterol are down
liver functions are great

in my opinion he is a genius
his office and large list of patients are proof that others also believe him to be a positive force in their health care

his chiropractic diagnoses are done in about 90 seconds without the need for any x-rays

he was one of the first people in Canada to bring in European style electric stimulation equipment to stimulate muscle growth and blood flow to heal injured soft tissue

he used to play centre for the Toronto Argonauts and for his size is a gentle and soft spoken man - all of my referrals have been extremely pleased with him

the man is nothing short of miraculous

Dr. Morris Zubkewycz, DC
Sports Injury Clinic
Bloor West, near High Park
416-762-7591

take a shot - your health can only get better...


----------



## moonsocket (Apr 1, 2002)

My wife has been a regular visitor to a Naturopath since she was diagnosed with breast cancer allmost 10 years ago. Her Oncologist was the one who suggested she go. She is totally healthy now and I believe that is due in part to her visits to the naturopath.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

jasonwood said:


> disproving anything out of the norm??? It's exactly the opposite! I tackle beliefs that people hold strongly without a rational basis.
> 
> If I am "hellbent" on anything it is to promote and defend reason, science, and freedom of inquiry, and encourage evidence-based inquiry into science, pseudoscience, medicine and health, religion, ethics, secularism, and society.


"Reason" has suggested many things over the years.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

darkscot said:


> "Reason" has suggested many things over the years.


What are you getting at?


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

It is not my contention that naturopathy is all bad...

"Much of the advice of naturopaths is sound: exercise, quit smoking, eat lots of fresh fruits and vegetables, practice good nutrition. Claims that these and practices such as colonic irrigation or coffee enemas "detoxify" the body or enhance the immune system or promote "homeostasis," "harmony," "balance," "vitality," and the like are exaggerated and not backed up by sound research."
Source: http://skepdic.com/natpathy.html


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

jasonwood said:


> ...
> I am shocked by the blatant lies surrounding so called "alternative medicine".
> ....


I'm sure you didn't mean to, but by quoting "alternative medicine", and then pointing out some loopy-doopy product, you do a great disservice to much of what you might call the hard-working and yes, even "scientific" Alternative Medicine community.

In my household, allopathic medicine is the alternative. And it's an alternative I have not accessed since I needed surgery for major trauma. Even then, I supplemented and often rejected much of what the mainstream practitioners prescribed.

If you are _"shocked by the blatant lies surrounding so called "alternative medicine"."_, you better not do too much research into the mainstream medical community, or you'll have an aneurysm. 
(One teeny tiny example: Last year, in a moment of uncharacteristic candor, the CEO of a major drug manufacturing company admitted that something like 80 % of his company's products did no good. (I really wish I had kept _that_ news link!))

You point out that the Naturopaths' association is self-regulated. The organisation becomes licensed and self-regulated once they prove to the government that they are qualified and capable of doing this.
The allopathic physicians in Canada also have their own, _self-regulating_ association - the CMA http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/44413/la_id/1.htm

A small but illuminating anecdote of how the medical system works; 
When I was in nursing school, we had a nutrition class. I was quiet excited to learn about nutrition from a medical perspective! 
We were taught from Canada's Food Guide.  
After class, I approached my teacher and asked how we could possibly be taught nutrition from a guide that is created not by science, but by various agricultural groups lobbying the government for inclusion and higher placement on the guide?
She answered that yes, she knew that she was not teaching nutrition, but the guide would be the basis of our government licensing exams, and there was nothing she could do.

In my years (and years, and years) of research of health and medical issues, I have become extremely wary of the mainstream medical community, and almost completely reliant on what you would call the "alternative medical community".
And I don't need to access these practioners often at all.

Even our veterinarian is an holistic practitoner, having been trained in the mainstream Veterinary College of Cambridge University, before continuing his studies in veterinary homeopathy. Imagine going to a vet who makes money by selling you drugs for your pet. You take your puppy in for a baldder infection, and the vet refuses adamantly to prescribe antibiotics, and instead gives you a special diet for the little mutt, and tells you to go to a health food store to get specific homeopathic and natural ingredients to add to your pup's diet til she's cured.
That's the difference between our vet and most others.

I could list off the health benefits I enjoy over my allopathic friends and relatives, but it would be pointless as it is merely anecdotal evidence, and not the scientific research you are (quiet rightly) looking for. 

I whole-heartedly support your invesigation of the _entire_ medical community, Alternative _and_ Allopathic.

www.holisticottawa.com


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

SoyMac said:


> If you are _"shocked by the blatant lies surrounding so called "alternative medicine"."_, you better not do too much research into the mainstream medical community, or you'll have an aneurysm.
> (One teeny tiny example: Last year, in a moment of uncharacteristic candor, the CEO of a major drug manufacturing company admitted that something like 80 % of his company's products did no good. (I really wish I had kept _that_ news link!))


If you want to bring on an aneurysm, you had better provide an example that you can reference.



SoyMac said:


> You point out that the Naturopaths' association is self-regulated. The organisation becomes licensed and self-regulated once they prove to the government that they are qualified and capable of doing this.
> The allopathic physicians in Canada also have their own, _self-regulating_ association - the CMA http://www.cma.ca/index.cfm/ci_id/44413/la_id/1.htm


I don't believe I did make that point... my point was that whether a group is "recognized" by the government has little meaning. I think we can all agree on that.



SoyMac said:


> A small but illuminating anecdote of how the medical system works;
> When I was in nursing school, we had a nutrition class. I was quiet excited to learn about nutrition from a medical perspective!
> We were taught from Canada's Food Guide.
> After class, I approached my teacher and asked how we could possibly be taught nutrition from a guide that is created not by science, but by various agricultural groups lobbying the government for inclusion and higher placement on the guide?
> She answered that yes, she knew that she was not teaching nutrition, but the guide would be the basis of our government licensing exams, and there was nothing she could do.


This is interesting. Any references?



Edit: Changed "Regulated" to "Recognized"


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Well Jason I have to say you haven't a clue what you are talking about on this one. 

I'll give you a classic example.

My ex wife was a runner and very fitness conscious - she worked as a medical technician for St. Joseph's Hospital in Hamilton and she and I were both confident in the mainstream medical profession. No reason not to be and anything outside it we viewed with skepticism tho it rarely entered or consciousness.

Joni was attacked and very badly bitten by a german shepard - it literally would have killed her ( it went for her throat ) had not a neighbor beaten the dog off. He carried a steel pipe on his walks because the guard dog had gotten loose before and attacked other dogs and killed them in the neighborhood and HE was afraid of it as well.

Needless to say this was very traumatic, the bites were bad and took healing time and she went to her regular doctor. So far so good for the mainstream.
She healed up and tried to get back running but was exhausted all the time.
Back into the doc - oh you're anemic so he prescribed first iron supplements then finally when the red cell count did not improve massive iron injections.
To the point where the injection site was black.
Still no change, tired and no significant movement in the cell count and quite frankly an "it's all in your head" attitude from a couple of doctors including her family doc.

So with nothing to lose she made an appointment with a naturopath in Toronto recommended by a friend ( we lived in Waterdown at the time so it was a hike for us ).

I went along for support and out of interest not expecting much.

We filled out extensive questionaires - that aspect is really not connected to the tale - and he had quite an eye for old physical injuries that I'd suffered and showed up in my gait and posture.

The eye opener was with Joni's anemia and iron. 
HE knew that when the body deals with stress it requires more B vitamins - beleive me the dog attack was serious stress. He also knew that the body requires B to take up iron properly, so the mainstream doctor got it only half right and HIS remedy failed.

The Naturopath advised a higher than normal B regimen, in two weeks cell count was close to normal, all the blackness around the injection site gone and energy back.

The naturopath understood the overall impact of the dog attack, iron and vitamins and stress and had the training to deal with. 
The mainstream doctor did not - he wasn't trained enough in that aspect of health. He failed to bring Joni back to health even tho he treated the wounds. His training was inadequate.

EVERY doctor will tell you the body is marvellous at dealing with illness if the conditions are correct and nutrition, stress and often common minerals like sulphur and zinc are available for the body to work with.

Naturopaths work with the body systems as they are naturally and the patient's actual circumstance to enable the patient to return to health.
They don't pretend to "cure".....that's ma nature's job.
They just set the stage for it.

BTW after being in the mainstream medical for years my ex is now an ND.

••

The lists go on. Mainstream prescibes the little purple pill for heartburn - the ND acidopholus or even active yogurt.
Turns out esophagial cancer and chronic heartburn is on the rise while stomach ulcers are declining - why?? - wrong bacterial balance in our guts.
Now tell me which medical person is more correct in their advice.....the drug prescriber or the active culture prescriber???

Both have their role. I'd go mainstream for a broken leg and to Morris ( Macspectrums guy - I've been there he's incredible ) in heartbeat to get my leg working right.

There is ignorance and quackery on BOTH streams. Just have a look at the C section baby stats if you want to be disgusted......it's not good medicine it's a rip off to line some doctor's pockets. 

Give me an experienced midwife every time over a family doctor to help a women through pregnancy.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MacDoc, I would refer you back to post #12 where I clearly stated that much of the advice of Naturopathy is sound.

I never said these are bad people, and I am not one bit surprised that sometimes they provide a solution that works after a Medical Doctor has provided one that doesn't.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

The problem with debating "Naturopathy" is that it is a broad topic. It would be more useful to discuss specific things done by naturopathic doctors, then examine those things to see if they make sense. Some will, some won't.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

In case you are wondering about C section 


> Unnecessary C-sections profiled in Tulane study
> Future survey to ask why procedures done
> Saturday, April 30, 2005
> By John Pope
> ...


No naturopath ever did the kind of harm an unnecessary serious operation of this nature entails 

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/index.ssf?/base/news-9/1114842700304820.xml

And the naturopathic approach is even benefitting the farm community. Turns out there is a protective factor passed along to chicks by their mothers by way of a bacterium that gets lost in factory farms.
Farmers have been using antibiotics to combat salmonella and that has very serious long term consequences for the ecosystem and resistant bacteria development.

By returning the chick to it's mother or providing the bacterial vector by way of a spray the natural resistance of the chick to salmonella is restored.....without antibiotics.
That's EXACTLY what drugless treatment is about.

It's no more voodoo than good bedside manner is. It's working WITH the natural systems instead of invading them with drugs or surgery.

You want the real shocker in all this -



> America's Healthcare System is the Third Leading Cause of Death
> 
> Barbara Starfield, M.D. (2000)
> 
> ...


http://www.health-care-reform.net/causedeath.htm

These are NOT deaths that would have occurred anyway - these are deaths DUE to the medical treatment or the environs.



> Medical system is leading cause of death and injury in US
> 
> Categories
> Health
> ...


http://www.newmediaexplorer.org/sep...s_leading_cause_of_death_and_injury_in_us.htm

Still confident in your condemnation??? - perhaps you are looking in the wrong direction entirely..........the Hypocratic idea was *"first do no harm"*
I tell you I know where naturopaths would rank on that scale against mainstream......far and away better.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Sorry but your backpedaling at this point doesn't cut it.
You drew a huge wide brush stroke of quackery and excluded from that the horrors arising from mainstream abuses of patients.

Care to reword your accusation???


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Give me an experienced midwife every time over a family doctor to help a women through pregnancy.


Agreed, with/or a doula


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Sorry but your backpedaling at this point doesn't cut it.
> You drew a huge wide brush stroke of quackery and excluded from that the horrors arising from mainstream abuses of patients.
> 
> Care to reword your accusation???


It seems all the support for Naturopathy is based in testimony rather than fact, but that's okay, none of us are doctors.

But since it keeps coming up, I'd be interested in discussing more of these "horrors arising from mainstream abuses of patients".

Do they statistically outweigh the number of people who have been killed by chiropractors or die because they refer to alternative medicine for cancer treatment?


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

jasonwood said:


> What are you getting at?


What is considered reasonable for some is not reasonable for others. Reasonable can change from decade to decade. Reason stands on science. Science is evolving. Just look at science and quantum physics: particle or wave, matter in two places at the same time, holographic universes.

On a personal level, chiropractors, doulas, midwives and naturopaths have benficially impacted my life and the lives of those around me. I have never once heard a person that has gone to a naturopath bitch about one. Same for chiropractor, doula, midwife, etc. I have heard PLENTY of bitching from those who have never availed themselves of their services.Try them, you may have an eye-opener.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

darkscot said:


> What is considered reasonable for some is not reasonable for others. Reasonable can change from decade to decade. Reason stands on science. Science is evolving. Just look at science and quantum physics: particle or wave, matter in two places at the same time, holographic universes.


True. That's why science & reason is such a great tool. It is open to new information.



darkscot said:


> On a personal level, chiropractors, doulas, midwives and naturopaths have benficially impacted my life and the lives of those around me. I have never once heard a person that has gone to a naturopath bitch about one. Same for chiropractor, doula, midwife, etc. I have heard PLENTY of bitching from those who have never availed themselves of their services.Try them, you may have an eye-opener.


Well okay, if you want testimonials, I'll give you one. I used to see a chiropractor weekly. The adjustments feel good but there was never any lasting affect. I stopped going. I still think that people CAN benefit from chiropractic if they are having problems with their joints (though I am not certain of this), but I also know that by definition, Chiropractic holds that many other problems in the body can be corrected by chiropractic work, and there's just no evidence of that.

The number of people who have died as a result of Chiropractic doesn't help either.

Where I went to school, there was a chiropractor who was extremely vocal in opposition to Vaccinations. Naturopathic doctors have been known to take this position as well, including officially through the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians.

"The American Association of Naturopathic Physicians position statement on childhood vaccinations advocates "informed consent," "more research," and "parental choice. These may sound legitimate, but the real message is an unbalanced attack on immunization based on delusional philosophy rather than science. The prevailing scientific view is that a few minor problems exist and are being addressed, but the benefits of immunization are so much greater than the risks that immunization should be universal. (In other words, the public health value of immunization is so well established that it would be senseless to debate whether or not it is worthwhile.) In contrast, the AANP paper exaggerates the risks and suggests that "some" of the current vaccinations are ineffective."

Like chiropractors, I believe it is likely that they have much good to offer, but there is so much superstition and unfounded belief that I find it absurd that anyone would consider it as a source for primary care.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

I am just wondering Jasonwood if you are basing your opinions on what only one website says regarding the products you mentioned at first. I don't know a thing about them and I am not saying they are good or bad, I don't know.....how do you
know the website you refer to in your first post isn't simply someone's opinions?


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

I have a feeling that most people that go to a chiro and then complain about it not having a "lasting affect" neglect to take in the chiro's advice on how to maintain and improve their condition.

what's the number of those dead with chiro's compared to "traditional"?

As for vaccinations, you quote a phrase from "somewhere" without really getting into the meat of the suject. What is the "delusional philosophy" it speaks of? Any anti-vaccination diatribes I've heard an considered have been based on statistics and real science. Mankind has lived for ages without vaccinations. Earth is overpopulated as it is. People die. We're supposed to.

"But there is so much superstition and unfounded belief" - you say it is superstition yourself yet have created an entire thread expounding upon your own ridicule of it and other "alternative medicines". No wonder some avoid it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

darkscot said:


> I have a feeling that most people that go to a chiro and then complain about it not having a "lasting affect" neglect to take in the chiro's advice on how to maintain and improve their condition.


I have visited two Chiropractors in my life. The first one hurt me badly and the second one actually injured my back.

Quacks? Definitely.

Stay far, far away.


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

sounds like bad luck, SINC. Would your signature have any contribution to it as well?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

What signature?


----------



## darkscot (Nov 13, 2003)

hahaha! i'll walk tomorrow. promise


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Mainstream wrote off acupuncture in the past.



> ontact: Sharon Boston [email protected]
> Ellen Beth Levitt [email protected] 410-328-8919
> 
> STUDY ANALYSIS SHOWS ACUPUNCTURE EFFECTIVE FOR TREATING CHRONIC LOW BACK PAIN
> ...


http://www.umm.edu/news/releases/back_pain.html

On the flip side mainstream doctors encouraged mothers to take thalidomide.
Somehow billions of humans had been born without the benefit of thalidomide.

What was it sold for........aid to sleep and for morning sickness. 

As a pilot we use ginger pills all the time for nausea - the mainstream will tell you gravol - NOW the mainstream is discovering ginger as often MORE effective than drug compnay developed compounds for kids with luekemia to counteract nausea - but the drug companies don't get rich on ginger.

Do alternative treatments need to be studied rigourously - absolutely. Fortunately many mainstream doctors acknowledge they don't have all the answers and that rarely is there a manmade magic bullet.

One marvelous aspect of alternatives is empowering people to undertake self treatment and understand their own bodies instead of relying on the "medical establishment" for all things.

Here's a classic case of an honest physician pointing out the history and the deficiency of knowledge



> The Science of Nutrition and Bone Health
> By William Cabot, MD, FAAOS
> 
> Orthopedic surgeon and author William Cabot, MD, FAAOS, measures the medical and economical benefits of prescribing nutritional supplements in the ongoing treatment of osteoporosis.
> ...


Now he concludes as this speaks to your point but what you miss is our point...it's not all quackery and both camps have much to learn.



> As physicians, we are tremendously hampered by the fact that nutritional supplements lack the evidence-based science available for pharmacologic therapies. Although there are some good studies, much of the information available is purely anecdotal and unscientific.
> 
> There is no doubt that nutrition plays a critical role in the evolution of osteoporosis. Ensuring the adequacy of many nutrients besides calcium is essential for bone health, just as weight-bearing exercise is critical for the development and maintenance of bone mass. Individual requirements vary with age, prescribed medications, eating habits, and the presence or absence of other diseases. Nutritional intervention in osteoporotic patients as well as preosteoporotic individuals can certainly be effective in reducing medical costs and improving outcomes.
> 
> William Cabot, MD, FAAOS, is a Fellow of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. He is a frequent guest and contributor to the Academy? CAM Committee, and is coauthor of The Osteoporosis Solution and Nature? Pain Killers by Kensington Books. He is in private practice with The Center for Integrative Medicine in Easton, Md, and serves as a member of the editorial advisory board for Orthopedic Technology Review.


http://www.orthopedictechreview.com/issues/sepoct02/pg30.htm

We're no where near being able to understand brain and body let alone understanding the myriad ways of treatment.
That many alternatives focus on drug free and engaging the body's own defences speaks well for the field.

Want another eye opener - try and find out why western science ignores bacteriophage treatments



> Ex-Soviet Union viruses could fill antibiotic gap.
> 
> Russian remedies could take out hardy US bacteria. Long-abandoned by Western medicine, viruses that naturally kill microbes are being imported as a potential substitute for antibiotics.


http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine_health/report-9465.html

By all means be skeptical......of both camps.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Anecdotes are strange things in place of comprehensive research. For example, since I started smoking I get fewer colds. Of course, I live in cities so maybe the filter cleans the air. It's all very zen. 

Medical science is definitely slowed by rigorous standards, whereas the alternatives can pretty much just give you whatever they feel like. So while I can see much potential for them, the same would be true of completely unregulated medical science. It's the lower risk and confidence you can have that comes with the regulation.

For the most part, you can go to any doctor and get fairly good treatment and/or referrals (there will always be some bad ones) but for the pseudo-scientists, ONLY deal with good references. In both cases, as with most things in life, doing your own research can be handy, but naturopathy/chiro/etc. have all been held to a much lower (in some cases no) standard and have limited scientific research behind them. Medical science and old-wives tales are not on equal footing, thus the strong recommendation to only use an old-wives tale remedy with stellar references -- some of them actually work.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Cameo said:


> I am just wondering Jasonwood if you are basing your opinions on what only one website says regarding the products you mentioned at first. I don't know a thing about them and I am not saying they are good or bad, I don't know.....how do you know the website you refer to in your first post isn't simply someone's opinions?


Certainly not. Quackwatch, the web site I recommended for checkout out alternative medicine, does not even mention the Q-Ray. I had to go through multiple web sites discussing BioMeridian and their fraud cases before I found the Quackwatch commentary on Electrodiagnostic devices (the device which proved that the Q-Ray worked, "scientifically").

Quackwatch.org seems to be a particularly thorough, credible, and well-researched source, but when people objected to my including Naturopathy in the list, I did quite a number of Google searches to find other resources.

I do tend to focus on the ones that cover the controversy, rather than simply functioning as billboards for the practices, and generally the ones that cover the controversy look unfavorably on alternative medicines. 

Besides Quackwatch, another big one is this Canadian source: http://www.healthwatcher.net/Quackerywatch/Naturopathy/index.html which I've barely looked at (there's a lot there!). Alternative medicine also comes up frequently on the Point of Inquiry Podcast, which I listen to weekly.

I find most of those that are pro-alternative medicine are based on testimonials and pseudoscience (frequent use of vague terms like "body energy" and "body toxins", which I just don't find all that convincing).

When looking at the Q-Ray, I also read the first study they linked to, which supposedly supported the pendant. When I actually read the article, it was abundantly clear that they were not recommending it. It had an "effect", but it wasn't known to be a positive or negative effect. So even when people back their products with scientific claims, you have to read the studies!

I do not deny that Naturopathic Doctors can provide good advice. After all, they do have 3 years of real medical education (at least they do in Canada).

But overall, it's not looking good for them...


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

darkscot said:


> I have a feeling that most people that go to a chiro and then complain about it not having a "lasting affect" neglect to take in the chiro's advice on how to maintain and improve their condition.


My chiropractor didn't give me any practical advice. His main concern was keeping me coming back every week.



darkscot said:


> As for vaccinations, you quote a phrase from "somewhere" without really getting into the meat of the suject. What is the "delusional philosophy" it speaks of? Any anti-vaccination diatribes I've heard an considered have been based on statistics and real science. Mankind has lived for ages without vaccinations. Earth is overpopulated as it is. People die. We're supposed to.


Sorry about not including a source... but you can just do a search for "Chiropractor Vaccine" or "Chiropractic Vaccine" and you'll find TONS and TONS of stuff on this topic. It's worth looking into yourself. I don't think there's any legitimate debate on this, so I'd rather not dignify it with further discussion here. Chiropractors who rant against vaccines are quacks. Of course, not all of them do this.



darkscot said:


> "But there is so much superstition and unfounded belief" - you say it is superstition yourself yet have created an entire thread expounding upon your own ridicule of it and other "alternative medicines". No wonder some avoid it.


I have no idea what you're saying. Maybe I was unclear. Chiropractors are being superstitious when they advise people not to take a meningitis shot during an outbreak. Just come in to my office and get your spine straightened and you'll be immune to disease.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

jasonwood said:


> I do not deny that Naturopathic Doctors can provide good advice. After all, they do have 3 years of real medical education (at least they do in Canada).


Could be a handy rule of thumb. Treat 3-year 'doctors' with the same skepticism you would treat a 3rd year biology student dispensing medical advice and treatment. The student could be right, but be careful. Wasn't he attached to a beer-bong last Friday? 

If you have time, look into real doctors and treatments too. But treating the 3-year 'doctor' as equally credible (or incredible) to a doctor would be strange. If you have plenty of time, research anything and everything.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

there ya go again macdoc, quoting "opinion"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Oooh a quote war! Whereby volume and VOLUME carry the day.

http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/misrep.html


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

jasonwood said:


> I have no idea what you're saying. Maybe I was unclear. Chiropractors are being superstitious when they advise people not to take a meningitis shot during an outbreak. Just come in to my office and get your spine straightened and you'll be immune to disease.


Chiropractors (at least in Ontario) who advise on vaccinations are also going against the Standards of Practice for their own regulatory body (The Chiropractic College of Ontario) and the laws set out in Ontario's Chiropractic Act.

This is also considered Professional Misconduct, and should be reported--punishment includes fines and possible jail time.

http://www.cco.on.ca/standard_of_practice_s-015.htm
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/DBLaws/Statutes/English/91c21_e.htm

I have no issues with chiropractic treatment--it's such a normal thing in my family that I was pretty shocked to discover that many people consider it alternative medicine. But generally, I would just go for back problems.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

yeah, ever since Harper became PM a mysterious pain in my neck has arisen


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

My experience with alternative medicine was that its practitioners insisted I must "believe" in the treatment or it would not work for me. Relatives for whom treatments failed were told that their belief was lacking. 

I have no doubt that some cures work, but under such restrictions you can't even perform a double-blind study since "belief" is a non-measurable variable. But in studies not requiring belief, echinacea and golden seal were revealed to have only mild antibiotic effects, while aloe vera was found to actually prevent healing of certain wounds over the long term.

A young relative had a serious bone disease, so rare that doctors could find only one, possibly two, other cases in the world that appeared similar. A child in Indonesia had been cured by application of a certain antibiotic. The local chiro insisted the medicine be stopped. The parents (one scientific, theother "alternative") compromised by allowing the chiro to administer some minerals and a few herbs known to be harmless in the doses prescribed--while the antibiotic treatments continued. Guess who took credit for curing him?

The same chiro treated an aunt for "love of butter"--not obesity, mind you, or overeating. Another was treated for "music in her head." I think that the strength of alternative medicine--from a marketing standpoint--is that it dismisses no complaint as illogical, irrelevant, or piddling. All conditions are worthy of treatment, and although some may prescribe treatment in exchange for a dozen farm fresh eggs or a jar of preserves, this guy charges big time.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Sonal: There's a big schism in the chiropractic community. It's basically split along musculoskelatal/alternative medicine lines, so people's experience with one chiro will be extremely different from another.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

It's strange to see so many place their faith in for-profit private medicine operating in a very open market with little scientific backing or regulatory oversight.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> It's strange to see so many place their faith in for-profit private medicine operating in a very open market with little scientific backing or regulatory oversight.


chiropractor fees were recently removed from OHIP
i'm sure due to pressure from the OMA which popped champagne (imported of course) corks that night, not to mention the boys and girls of big pharm


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> chiropractor fees were recently removed from OHIP
> i'm sure due to pressure from the OMA which popped champagne (imported of course) corks that night, not to mention the boys and girls of big pharm


All of whom operate in heavily regulated (prices and practices) environments. But the private 'alternative' practitioners are in a much freer enviornment, including low/no drug regulation or research, setting their own prices etc. Good to see you support that kind of health care. :clap:


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Macfury said:


> My experience with alternative medicine was that its practitioners insisted I must "believe" in the treatment or it would not work for me. Relatives for whom treatments failed were told that their belief was lacking.


Good point.

It speaks to the value of testimonials in these sorts of things.

Lots of people believe in, and seek the advice of psychics. But psychics are not only of questionable value, they are outright frauds.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I've never experienced anything of the sort of "belief" nonsense in my dealings with chiros ( good and bad ) and naturopaths (good ).

Some chiros annoy me cuz the push services that are unnecessary but then so do many dentists.

Dealing with poor or misleading information or practice - be it mainstream OR alternative requires making complaint to the appropriate oversight group in either case.

Look at the Richard Neale case for mainstream not coping adequately with a death dealing doctor who was based in Oshawa and then fled to England to practice
http://www.medicalpost.com/mpcontent/article.jsp?content=/content/EXTRACT/RAWART/3627/59A.html



> Doctor struck from Britain's GMC
> 
> Victims of Dr. Richard Neale relieved; lawsuits still pending
> 
> ...


•••

Placebo and "bedside" phenomena are real artifacts of the mind interacting with the immune system. ANY decent doctor, mainstream or alternative knows the power of getting the mind onside.....even if by trickery.

It's "good judgement" we are all looking for in health care and perhaps a bit less hubris on the part of mainstream doctors who pretend they know it all......they don't.

••

What do "psychics" have to do with naturopatheic treatment.....innuendo by association....??? 

Ever been to a medical/drug convention??
Honest practice.....yeah right


----------



## arminia (Jan 27, 2005)

Check out James Randi's site at www.randi.org. He'll be happy to give any chiropractor a million dollars if he can prove his treatments work in a mutually agreed on test. Of course his money is safe from all these people.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

What I found particularly telling about the naturopaths I dealt with was that they sold their own "medicine" right in the office. That's certainly a place I'd like to see some separation. Theoretically, you could buy these at any health food store, but the insistence was that only they had a pure source of the required compound.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

And I want to warn everyone right now that nobody is to use the term "QuackDoc" because it sounds too much like MacDoc's name.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I was thinking of using it for a completely different reason. Is that still not ok?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Could be a handy rule of thumb. Treat 3-year 'doctors' with the same skepticism you would treat a 3rd year biology student dispensing medical advice and treatment. The student could be right, but be careful. Wasn't he attached to a beer-bong last Friday?
> 
> Oooh a quote war! Whereby volume and VOLUME carry the day.


Of course consider the alternative...where ignorance and innuendo wthout support purports to be discourse..... 

"real doctor" eh...talk about speaking volumes...... 

••••



> What I found particularly telling about the naturopaths I dealt with was that they sold their own "medicine" right in the office


But the "real doctor" who writes up his golfing buddy's "brand drug" instead of a less expensive generic, which the patient may or may not need at all.....he wears spotless robes of sanctity.

Perhaps enlighten us to why you are soooo familiar with naturopaths given your attitude towards them......seems to me you'd be outside picketing more likely.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> Of course consider the alternative...where ignorance and innuendo wthout support purports to be discourse.....
> ....
> But the "real doctor" who writes up his golfing buddy's "brand drug" instead of a less expensive generic, which the patient may or may not need at all.....he wears spotless robes of sanctity.
> 
> Perhaps enlighten us to why you are soooo familiar with naturopaths given your attitude towards them......seems to me you'd be outside picketing more likely.


You seem to be putting 'alternative' practitioners on equal footing, despite lacking any basis for such. You, a proponent of logic and the weakness of religion. If you choose to do that, you open the doors to psychics being put on equal footing, something you dismissed with no basis. 

If, however, you want to place some additional value on medical science due to its scientific process, then that's another matter. There can be value to alternative practices but they are not nearly as proven as other options. Akin to completely unproven and unresearched pharmaceuticals being sold. You can complain all you want about conspiracies or mistaken science, but the 'alternative' route is zero evaluation.

You may like to throw out 'golfing buddy' statements, but you place something with no basis above something with a basis you FEEL cynical about. I think others are merely trying to establish that alternative medicine is a lower standard and not 'scientific' (although some may be proven successfull); I'm not sure why there's any trouble with that. Yes, ideally, everybody researches everything diligently. That's not going to happen and, with limited time, alternative practitioners need much more 'back-checking' than doctors.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

If alternative medical options are so good, are they part of two-tier medicare (and not just paying guinea pigs)? Universal may not cover them so those with means pursue this additional care in their own interest. I thank them for their service; some of these options will prove useful but, instead of paying for scientific studies, they pay to be experimented upon. I salute you all.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> My experience with alternative medicine was that its practitioners insisted I must "believe" in the treatment or it would not work for me. Relatives for whom treatments failed were told that their belief was lacking.


I must live in a sheltered world of alternative practitioners. 

In my immediate family, I know people who have gone to chiropractors, homeopaths, chinese medicine, acupuncture, ayurveda, herbalists, etc. None of these problems--no one has been told to believe in it for it to work. Most have been helped in some way.

Mind you, I would be suspicious if belief was a requirement of the cure.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

arminia said:


> Check out James Randi's site at www.randi.org. He'll be happy to give any chiropractor a million dollars if he can prove his treatments work in a mutually agreed on test. Of course his money is safe from all these people.


Yes, many here would prefer to continue their "belief" medicine...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> You seem to be putting 'alternative' practitioners on equal footing, despite lacking any basis for such





> A closer look at the training requirements and educational standards for those who use the title “doctor”
> 
> By Paul Henderson
> 
> ...


Uphill battle for recognition....yep - midwives and nurse practitioners have had similar battles with the mainstream medical fraternity.

Too many mainstream doctors have wrapped themselves for decades in theses cloaks of infallability when in fact they are not even close and as the numbers show from the US studies the mainstream medical community is in of itself a major cause of death and certainly a predominant factor in over use and misuse of prescription drugs. They've certainly got you sucked in big time.



> In one study cost of antibiotic therapy ranged from $183.70 to $315.60. Of note, patients treated at institutions with the lowest antimicrobial costs did not demonstrate worse medical outcomes and the rate of hospitalization for outpatients was lowest for the site with the lowest costs (Gilbert et al. 1998). In a second study involving a total of 20 hospitals (11 teaching and 9 community) the rate of compliance with guidelines from the American Thoracic Society ranged from just under 50% to 100% (Feagan et al. 2000).
> 
> There seems to be significant over prescribing of antibiotics to children for certain conditions and a lack of basic knowledge of the principles of antibiotic use among a substantial minority of Canadian physicians


http://www.healthyskepticism.org/news/issue.php?id=2

Bottom line is the "self regulation" isn't working well at all.

My comment to you is you need to bring as much if not more skepticism to mainstream medical care as you do for alternatives.

When it's straight forward like a broken leg no question current acute care works quite well.
Post break and for chronic conditions and in the prescribing of drugs appropriately there is much to be desired.
Providing neutral advice on which drugs and in bed with the drug companies??

This is US based but nonetheless shows the level of the problem and you can bet it's not absent in Ontario or Canada



> *The New England Journal of Medicine will announce Thursday that it has given up finding truly independent doctors to write and review articles and editorials for it, as a result of the financial ties physicians have with so many drug companies in the United States* The Journal says the drug companies' reach is just too deep. In 2000, the drug industry sponsored more than 314,000 events for physicians — everything from luncheons to getaway weekends — at a cost of almost $2 billion. On top of that, many doctors accept speaking and consulting fees that link them to drug companies.
> No publication in this country influences the way your doctor treats an illness more than the New England Journal of Medicine. Since 1812, the Journal has scrutinized and published thousands of clinical studies. These "review" articles on drug therapy that can be pivotal. They tell doctors the strengths and weaknesses of new medications for everything form high blood pressure to obesity to cancer.


Here's a very good view from a Canadian perspective on how even the suspicion of such influence affects patients. Written by a Canadian family physician and the patient.....you'll see.



> *Whose pen is in your pocket?*
> 
> Christopher Sikora, MD, MSC
> 
> ...


http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2006/Mar/vol52-mar-college-2.asp

No foundation eh....what lalaland have you been in?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Well Jason I have to say you haven't a clue what you are talking about on this one.


Actually, I'd say Jason was on the money. Anecdotes as evidence does not constitute proof.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> No foundation eh....what lalaland have you been in?


This reminds me of religion and religious beliefs.....
Lalaland is where rebirths and homeopathic medicines live....


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: As a libertarian, I won't picket over the poor value I received from naturopaths. If you leave your local naturopath's office singing "I'm lovin' it" over your treatment, feel free to leave a big check and collect your sack of ground up seeds from the "dispensary." It's between you and Dr. Natural.

While some doctors might favour certain medicines, at least I can follow up the recommended prescription with some hard research performed under a degree of scrutiny. Nature's pharmacopia hasn't been placed under the same scrutiny.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Apropos of nothing, I am going to offer a prize each day to the person who quotes the largest amount of text and anecdotal evidence from copyrighted sources. Anyone who wishes to win today's "Plurimus Verbum" award has a lot of cutting and pasting to do before catching up on the lead hoss.


----------



## ALF (Aug 19, 2003)

*naturopathic training*

Interesting thread, lots of strong beliefs, both about drug medicine and complementary medicine. As a matter of interest, to enter the 4 year naturopathic program at an accredited Naturopathic College requires at least 3 years of a University Program, with very similar requirements to a Pre-Med program. In fact, most of the ND's I know, have done 4 or more years of University before doing another 4 years of Naturopathic Training. Also, ND's are licensed in Ontario, and in a number of other Canadian and American jurisdictions and answer to a licensing board with the power to remove someone's license to practice. Of course none of this is a guarantee of perfection, just as in many other fields. And we could definitely get into horror stories from the "perfection" of drug medicine and surgery. Ultimately we are each responsible for our own condition, and we should hire the best we can access, whether it be MD, DDT, ND, Accountant, Lawyer, etc. Just my 2 cents.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

ALF said:


> As a matter of interest, to enter the 4 year naturopathic program at an accredited Naturopathic College requires at least 3 years of a University Program, with very similar requirements to a Pre-Med program.


It does not matter how many letters you get after your name - it's still quackery.



> Accreditation
> In 1987, the U.S. Secretary of Education approved the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education (CNME) as an accrediting agency for the full-time schools. As with acupuncture and chiropractic schools, this recognition was not based upon the scientific validity of what is taught but on such factors as record-keeping, physical assets, financial status, makeup of the governing body, catalog characteristics, nondiscrimination policy, and self-evaluation system. NCNM, Bastyr, and Southwest became accredited.


http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Naturopathy/naturopathy.html
Yes that is the case in the US, but I imagine it would be similar for Canada...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

What "anecdotes" would those be AS?? The only one I've written about is my own experience with my ex which is indeed anecdotal.

The remainder are cited and are controlled studies such as the acupuncture study by University of Maryland or easily researched items like bacteriophage treatments used in Russia as a better alternative to antibiotics.
Most of the citations are mainstream doctor related pointing up the fogginess or outright danger from mainstream medical practices.

Show me the "anecdotes"??

What I'm pointing out is the imbalance between "respect for mainstream" which is unwarranted given the reality and disrespect for alternatives without reason.

Are you dismissing acupuncture entirely??? There is an alternative that has had a long struggle for acceptance.
Bacteriophage??
Ginger in treating nausea ?- all of these "alternatives" have a sound basis in science and more importantly may have LESS of a collateral damage aspect to health or environment than the branded drugs.

The point is..... outrageous claims, misinformation, mistreatment exists in both mainstream and alternative treatment environments and the damage on the mainstream is very easy to see.......and that damage is not in the least "anecdotal".

oh and jason I'll repeat it in case you missed it
You said


> But since it keeps coming up, I'd be interested in discussing more of these "horrors arising from mainstream abuses of patients".


I replied



> Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death 7/30/00
> Doctors Are The Third Leading Cause of Death in the US, Causing 225000 Deaths Every Year. *This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association ...*


http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm

by the medical establishment ABOUT the medical establshment. Just google on iatrogenic

Now you have to subscribe to JAMA for the orginal study material but it's results are accepted and circulated

http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/mistakes/common.htm

and the problem warranted a presidential task force



> The American Iatrogenic Association is devoted to the study and reporting of medical errors that lead to disease and death.
> 
> *In 2000, a presidential task force labelled medical errors a "national problem of epidemic proportions."* Members estimated that the "cost associated with these errors in lost income, disability, and health care costs is as much as $29 billion annually." That same year the Institute of Medicine released an historic report, "To err is human: building a safer health system.


http://www.iatrogenic.org/

Tell me again about where the real risks lie.

•••



> but I imagine it would be similar for Canada...


........you IMAGINE.....how poignant that statement is.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Beej - you commented on "equal footing" - 
http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/Nov/vol49-nov-research-1.asp


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The point is..... outrageous claims, misinformation, mistreatment exists in both mainstream and alternative treatment environments and the damage on the mainstream is very easy to see.......and that damage is not in the least "anecdotal".
> 
> 
> http://www.iatrogenic.org/
> ...


Since argument style there "believer".

As a science there is nothing wrong with peer review and introspection. Hey, there is even bodies seeking accountability (the source of your horror stories). 

And here is where you are completely off the mark - your alternatives are so far removed from sciences that they become faith. Where are the alt med reviews? Pseudo-science....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Beej - you commented on "equal footing" -
> http://www.cfpc.ca/cfp/2003/Nov/vol49-nov-research-1.asp


Wow MacDoc - similarities in approach... not science, treatment or validity...
Hey, I'm sure that if you were evaluating my computers needs and the approach of a doctor, you'd score high on their questionnaire...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Before we go further, let's get a few things straight.

http://www.quackfiles.com/
....
Here are the unspoken ground rules that the "alt-med" believers impose on any debate: 

[1] The experts you quote are corrupt, short-sighted, narrow-minded reactionaries. The experts they quote are altruistic,
visionary, open-minded progressives. 

*[2] In "alt-med", everyone is a victim - of corrupt doctors, polluting corporations, government conspiracies, etc. Their
disorders are never caused by their own lifestyle choices (e.g. overeating, too little exercise, drinking too much, etc.),
genetics or random chance. And their symptoms are most definitely NOT psychosomatic or imaginary. To even imply
otherwise is a serious breach of etiquette. 
*
[3] Suffering from a disorder, or having a family member (e.g. parent, spouse, etc.) that suffers from a disorder makes
you an unimpeachable expert on that disorder. Any lack of formal education, training or expertise is more than
compensated by intimate knowledge as a sufferer or "co-sufferer". 

[4] Scientific method is merely a ploy to keep the truth of "alt-med" hidden so that corrupt doctors and "Big Pharma"
(pharmaceutical corporations) can continue to profit from human misery. This is no different from the oil companies and
auto manufacturers that have hidden the secret of cars that run on water or get 2000 miles to the gallon of gasoline.

[5] Peer-reviewed scientific journals are part of a massive conspiracy to suppress "alt-med". Forcing "alt-med"
practitioners to show their data is categorically unfair - they are much too busy saving lives to be bothered with proving
what they already know is true. 

*[6] No matter how outrageous their claim is, it is true unless you can prove it false. 
*
[7] You can never prove any "alt-med" claim false because you are "biased" (i.e. you don't already believe them). Only a
person who is "open-minded" (see below) can evaluate their claims in a fair and impartial manner. 

*[8] "Open-minded" means "willing to permanently suspend disbelief." If you insist on holding on to your old, outmoded
ideas (such as chemistry, biology, physics, anatomy, physiology or even simple logic), you will be blind to their new truth. 
*
[9] Their anecdotes and testimonials are equivalent to (if not superior to) your data. After all, everybody knows that data
can be faked (and that people never, ever lie). 

*[10] The fact that doctors, hospitals and pharmaceutical companies make money is proof that they are all evil, corrupt
and will do anything for a buck (US dollar). When "alt-med" practitioners make money, they are just getting what they
deserve for "helping" so many people. 
*
*[11] "Tolerance", for you, means swallowing their line of "reasoning" without complaint (or gagging). For them, "tolerance"
means letting you get in a few words when they take a breath. *You'll know that the debate is over when they call you a
"nazi" (or similar epithet) - it's just their little way of showing tolerance for other points of view. 

*[12] You can't convince them, so don't try to - just enjoy the game. The "alt-med" believers desperately want to be taken
seriously, so don't get defensive - it just gives them credibility in the eyes of the public. Try laughing instead. There will
probably be other people listening that may see the logic in your reasoning, so your efforts are not in vain.*
....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The remainder are cited and are controlled studies such as the acupuncture study by University of Maryland or easily researched items like bacteriophage treatments used in Russia as a better alternative to antibiotics.
> Most of the citations are mainstream doctor related pointing up the fogginess or outright danger from mainstream medical practices.


Well, your Berman study that you site says this:


> Cautions
> Many participants dropped out of the study, so readers should interpret the findings at 26 weeks with caution.


And this study is biased from the get go because of the good Dr. Berman...
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/141/12/901

I agree with the NCAHR on acupuncture


> NCAHF believes:
> 
> 1-Acupuncture is an unproven modality of treatment;
> 2- Its theory and practice are based on primitive and fanciful concepts of health and disease that bear no relationship to present scientific knowledge;
> ...


http://www.ncahf.org/pp/acu.html


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

This is all quite strange. I don't think anyone is advocating the 'perfection' of medical science or the alternatives. However treating them equally despite a substantially different level of examination is irresponsible. Like advocating against immunization based on the first principles of spirituality. 

The danger isn't necessarily when someone has a tummy-ache, it is when people have serious problems and believe a 'quack' who has no idea or backing for their recommendations. This does not mean all alternative practitioners are like that, but their 'science' is loaded with looney beliefs and very little science. Thus be very careful with references for them, the good ones can be helpful. 'Equal footing', however, is not warranted from bedside manner and filling out forms.
....
Qualitative analysis revealed that information gathering and treatment planning were very similar whether patients were visiting FPs or NPs. Most important differences were length of interaction (mean 54 minutes for NPs and 16.5 minutes for FPs) and patients’ reasons for visits. Naturopathic practitioners were more likely to recommend medications (usually natural health products) than FPs. Quantitative data suggested that patients perceived no differences in patient-centred care from FPs and NPs.
....
What research went into those medications?

And yes, hospitals are dangerous places. People are more likely to die in hospitals than other places. Guess why? They are there for serious and highly complex problems. And yes, mistakes occur too. Mistakes from a basis of knowledge; whereas faith-based medicine doesn't really make mistakes because it has very little basis for proving what is right in the first place. Luckily they generally just deal with minor ailments so they can't cause too much destruction. 

Back to people in hospitals. A difference being that the situation of people in hospital care makes them at risk. So yes, things can be improved through research into best practices and information dissemination, but implying that hospital-deaths has any bearing on the credibility of naturopathy is to play the old shell game: can't defend your belief as anything but 'experience with this guy' or 'faith', then attack the 'establishment' or 'The Man'. 

Flaws in medical practice suggest that patients be careful. A lack of scientific basis to begin with suggests patients should take it with a grain of salt (does that cure depression? it makes me happy). The pharma example: big bad companies researching big bad drugs and maybe tampering with evidence and buying off the FDA. Alternative: no research to tamper with, no people to buy off, you are the experiment and there may be no tracking of that either. So, you see, discrediting one, for real or warped reasons, doesn't make the other credible or equally trustworthy. Individuals in either practice may be more trustworthy than 'establishments' as a whole, but then you're back to the stellar references. And now back to your regularly scheduled psychic healing.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The line I've gotten quite often from the "converted" is that if I have any illness, medical condition, or trauma, it's because I "choose" to live with it. The answers to all of my problems can be found in New Age medicine. I can see where such wrong-headed beliefs have some appeal--you can wash your hands of all illnesses people suffer around you by saying they "choose" them.

I think the worst recent example I can think of is a woman who was dying of liver cancer. New Agers fed her a diet of herbal teas while she underwent scientifically-based treatment. Her condition briefly improved and the New Agers took credit for it. She grew tired of the teas and stopped taking them (she never really believed in it anyway). After her death, these people blamed HER for her demise, because she had neglected their herbal treatment.

My favourite line from the New Age crowd: "QUESTION: What do you call a medical student who graduated last in his class. ANSWER: A doctor." I guess this wows them at the conventions."

My version: "QUESTION: What do you call an New Age healer who graduates first in his class? ANSWER: A quack."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Many participants dropped out of the study, so readers should interpret the findings at 26 weeks with caution.


Is that the best you can come up with? .......a caution !!- of course a small study warrants a caution.

The question I asked was regarding "anecdotes" which you claimed I was "littering" the discussion with.........no answer.

Strange how this perception of "know it all" mainstream has hung about the pundits were rattling on about myths of vitamins at one time.



> "Diet cures more than doctors."
> From Proverbial Folklore, 1875


http://www.thenutritionreporter.com/history_of_vitamins.html

My entire point is that skepticism of both streams is warranted and there is a loss of options and potential in tossing out what seem to be unorthodox approachs to health management as has been seen time and again in the history of medicine.
There is also very significant risk in blindly accepting mainstream medicines "we got it all down pat" approach.
Approachs that provide a real alternative to invasive and drug based therapies deserve better than outright dismissal nor do they warrant untested acceptance.
As often the Economist has a balanced view.



> Acupuncture
> Does it work?
> May 5th 2005
> 
> *Yes and no*


http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3935915

At one time Seasonal Affective Disorder was "all in the head"......of course shining a light on the subject is just poppycock......right?

••••
Wow incredibly scientific anecdote there Macfury........

•••

Beej you do okay up until the last line then lose your balance entirely.
It's IMPORTANT that alternatives both be available and encouraged but also subject to rigorous investigation. The one consistent criticism of mainstream medicine is not doing enough in the preventative aspects, something alternative often stress as most critical.

Everyone uses home brewed pharmacology to alter their mood and modify their health.
We drink coffee in the morning to perk us up and chocolate when feeling down and lots of fibre to stay "regular".
I can take a little pill for depression or perhaps start an exercise regimen.
I want an array of treatments available....alternatives.
I'd like both to have strong bases but don't expect all will and radical "we've got the answers" on either end of the spectrum deserve skeptical treatment.

I just wonder how people view the Freudian psychiatrists these days...??


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Is that the best you can come up with? .......a caution !!- of course a small study warrants a caution.


No MacDoc, that you the best *YOU* could come up with as proof....


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> My entire point is that skepticism of both streams is warranted and there is a loss of options and potential in tossing out what seem to be unorthodox approachs to health management as has been seen time and again in the history of medicine.
> There is also very significant risk in blindly accepting mainstream medicines "we got it all down pat" approach.
> Approachs that provide a real alternative to invasive and drug based therapies deserve better than outright dismissal nor do they warrant untested acceptance.


The problem with your arguments, is that you are blindly (shall I said faithfully) accepting mumbo-jumbo claims by alt-med practitioners and then attacking "traditional" medicine. No one claimed that traditional medicine was infallible. 

Yet you push and want to espouse pseudo-science garbage, quackery and pious claptrap. 

No one said not to explore non-tradionation avenues, but pushing questionable services and products is bunk.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Acupuncture is no better than the placebo effect with the added benefit of relieving you of your money....


There is no credible "science" behind it. 


> Points of acupuncture are unknown to science and their existence has not even been made probable. Their supposed topography is totally different among various schools of acupuncture.
> 
> All procedures to prove the existence of these points histologically or by means of skin-resistence measurements are not convincing.
> 
> ...


Dr. Baumann was president of the Academy's Council of Medicine. This article was originally published in Zeitschrift fur experimentelle Chirurgie 14:66-67, 1981.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> It's IMPORTANT that alternatives both be available and encouraged but also subject to rigorous investigation.
> ....
> The one consistent criticism of mainstream medicine is not doing enough in the preventative aspects, something alternative often stress as most critical.


This is where your presentation repeatedly seems to weaken -- implying false comparability. Here's a comparison: this is exactly what the IDers do. Evolution is imperfect, let's keep it all on the table.

Ideally everyone would partake of rigorous investigation for everything (in a very boring ideal world). Realistically, people make choices (good and bad) with their time; this means prioritizing and even choosing not to go certain routes. 

Placing the alternatives (without stellar personal references) on the same scale as medical science is, at best, faith-based because there is no real backing for it other than faith (this is why references are needed to establish at least some form of anecdotal backing from those you trust). 

If you have plenty of time to look into it good; most people either don't or don't want to and they are prey for fakery. I'm sure there are many sensible alternative practitioners that know their limits and are very concerned about some of their peers. And yes, just in case you think I'm forgetting, doctors have problems too. I remember being none too impressed with the med-school people I met in university. 

............

This one is commonly misrepresented. Doctors generally do stress preventative activities, patients just don't care. This issue isn't about alternative versus mainstream.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc: That wasn't a scientific anecdote, just a personal one. I had known the woman for about 40 years.

I have also watched people follow the prescriptions of Hulda Regehr Clark who suggests that all we need to cure diseases is to place a small electrical band around our wrist (powered by a 9-volt battery). This kills the "flukes" that cause all diseases. The bacteria that hop off the dead flukes are subsequently killed, as are the viruses that hop off the dead bacteria. Regehr's books, modestly titled "The Cure For All Cancers," "The Cure for All Advanced Cancers" and "The Cure for all Diseases" are given "equal" treatment at health food stores and ample shelf space in their book section.

The point I'm making here is that there is so much alternative quackery that there isn't enough time or resources to scientifically test even the most inane ideas to dispel them--like the fluke theory. Giving equal time to New Age cures is impossible--we don't have the resources to divert from investigations that promise real cures and treatment.


----------

