Alternative and natural medicine

[InstaCpu]

I looked and it seems no one has ever brought this up here so I'll have a go.

What do you think of alternative medicine? Is it effective? Can it replace or compliment traditional medicine and should it be reimbursed by medical insurance?

Let me put forth my position here. I have suffered from eczema since I was a child, I generally get it on the hands and occasionally elsewhere. Linked with that, I get hayfever and have a light asthma that flares up at this time, depending on the severity of the hayfever. Last summer, as a result of stress with my personal and academic life, I had a big flare up which saw my skin get red on my torso and legs and face as well it was bad enough to prevent sleep and I entered a viscious cycle. I went to a dermatolgist who prescribed cortispone type ointments for the body and another none cortisone for my face.

Still improvement was slight....I have tried other alternatives like homeopathy to no avail when I decided to try acupunture. I found a doctor from China ( a woman in her 50s who is medically trained and whose husband works at the UN, not the one in New York) and is recognised by the government here. The clinic she works at is an registered and insurance pays 80% of the treatment. Sterile disposable needles too. It was very effective for me, my face cleared up, as my body, still have it on my hands, though when I go for treatment the itching goes down and they are improving slowly. I did a hayfever treatment which worked for my eyes itching, though not for sneezing as much and wheezing not at all. So I am convinced it works, for me anyway.

I have seen amazing things in regards to acupuncture, a Canadian show years ago called "Nature of Things" on science and ecology showed an operation in China on a patient who was conscious with needles as the only anesthetic...and a sheet to block view of her appendix or whatever it was being removed. On the other hand, how do we know it was legit? I must say at least one page I really like and respect:
Skeptic's Dictionary (http://skepdic.com/) has nothing good to say about this and other alternative medical practices. I am a bit skeptical about homeopathy because I see no scientific basis for it while naturopathy, message, and acupuncture seem to do so. Sorry for the long post ladies and gents, over to you.

[Nicodemus]

I must correct you. It's massage. :)

Being a massage therapist, I hold fast the position that the fewer chemicals you put in/on your body, the better off you are. I have seen through experience that the body does much better with natural methods rather than pharmaceutical ones. I think that as a society, we have become so dependant on the drugs because there is so much scientific backing for it, and in the western world, it's what we've been raised to think. We believe that the drugs will work, so they do. Of course, the same can be said for Eastern metheods, but all things being equal, wouldn't you rather have less chemcial poisons coursing through you body? You know all those "side" effects? They're not "side" effects, they're just effects. The 17 negative things that a medication does to you are deemed better than the one thing it's treating, but those 17 negative things are your body telling you that it doesn't want those chemicals in it.

[Broche]

Acupuncture is incredible. It's amasing just how well it works. My dad does it as part of phisiotherapy treatment, so I've had it done a few times.
The Western world really should be more open-minded in regards to alternative medicine. It's surprising what alternatives are out there to drugs, and how effective they can be.

[Roxsie]

My Sociology teacher, when she lived in Singapore, went to a public operation. This guy had open heart surgery only using acupuncture as a pain killer. The guy not onl didn't feel any pain but was able to be out and about almost straight after he was sown up.

So alternatives are just created to sell product but others really do work. It's just a pity they all get lumped together as claptrap. Its as bad as my pet peeve of people thinking there was no effective medicine before germ theory.

[Darkscull]

Its as bad as my pet peeve of people thinking there was no effective medicine before germ theory.

you stole my pet peeve! (oh well, i've got many others to fall back on, i've got a veritable menagerie of them)

this is the most annoying thing in the world of technological arrogance.
people seem to think that anything that you don't know how it works, doesn't work. or any old, natural remedy is new-age wiccan hippy claptrap.
the thing people don't seem to realise is that these methods were tested by trial and error over thousands of years.
you've got a cold, lets chop your head off... that didn't work
you've got a cold, lets feed you this leaf... oh, it worked, we'll do that again.
even if it's simple it still works :yarr:

it's equally annoying that many of the popular 'alternative' medicines really are just new age wiccan hippy claptrap, which ruins the chances of the ones that really do work.
homeopathic stuff is just a slightly sciencesque way of presenting spiritual healing. but natural remedies often work, as described above, and acupuncture is proven to work.
in fact, acupuncture, when used as an anasthetic (sp?) is better than chemical ones, where there is still a sizable chance that you won't wake up.

i agree with nicodemus' view of medicine and the body and such, even though i'm not a massage therapist :)
the only medicines i use are headache tablets (when i need to do things and it's incapacitating) and cough medicine when i've got a chesty cough.
i've had shots and stuff, but that's just to stop the infection, which makes sense, as opposed to just treating the symptoms.

because i've let my body deal with any problems that come up, it's still able to do that, and my immune system has matured. when people take medicines and such as soon as they're ill and don't let their body do it then their immune system atrophies, since they don't use it.
therefore they then need the medicine, whereas they might not have before.

[Nicodemus]

Psst... coughing is your body's way of getting rid of captured bacteria. If you've a respiratory infection, the excess phlegm helps to trap the bacteria, and then your brain is given the signal to cough and expectorate what comes up. You're not supposed to swallow it, and you're not supposed to treat the cough. As nasty as it sounds, you're meant to spit it out. A lot of people allow themselves to be so disgusted by it that they don't, and so stay sicker longer.

I can see some logic in taking a cough remedy if it's a dry throat/tickle in your throat thing, but you're still better off just easing the scratch with a warm beverage.

[InstaCpu]

Nicodemus, sorry I had a brain glitch and meant to type massage of course. My friends as well as myself really noticed the difference in my skin. So no one disagrees with me then? What kind of debate shall we have then? I will throw out the following, how to disinguish effective and safe alternative medecine (which is accepted by the scientific community) from quackery? Could some practices lead people to follow treatment that is dangerous because they either do something dangerous (ie. some plants actually are poisonous) or because they forego conventional treatment that could have helped them?

[Darkscull]

a lot of safe and effective alternative medicines arn't accepted by the scientific community. the scientific community are a load of arrogant, conservative swinehunds that refuse to even acknowledge the existence of anything unless they discovered/made it up themselves. (the 'scientific community' is annoying, and i'm hoping to not get lured into the same attitude when i join them in october)
has acunpuncture been recognised as a working method yet? i'm not sure.

i think the only way to sift between the proper methods and the quackery is for some medical group to actually test them, like they test conventional treatments, and then actually officially recognise the ones that work as 'medicine' and let people say that on the labels of the products that work, and stop people selling the others, or warn people against the others.
ie. the most effective way to make sure people use the good alternative medicines is to actually accept them into the mainstream.
however that would lower the demand for them, because the only reason many people use alternative medicine is just because it is 'alternative'

[Ozzylator]

Am I the only one who firmly believes that drugs are the accepted norm for a reason? If acupuncture, massage therapy etc. are so beneficial then why aren't they prescribed by doctors?

[Darkscull]

because the doctors assume they don't work because they are 'primitive'

acupuncture and natural remedies have been made by centuries of trial and error, and have worked all that time. that makes them the accepted norm until recently.

[renatzu]

These remedies were perfected and used successfullly over thousand of years. Obviously, they must help somehow. Acupuncture may not be freeing blocked chi, but it must help somehow.

On the other hand, there's a reason people live longer than they used to, and the germ theory of disease has revolutionized medicine. Purely holistic medicines, while helping in some cases, aren't going to cure cancer.

And yes, I know cancer isn't caused by germs. I'm just making a point.

[mrsnuffles]

because the doctors assume they don't work because they are 'primitive'

acupuncture and natural remedies have been made by centuries of trial and error, and have worked all that time. that makes them the accepted norm until recently.


Some doctors assume they don't work because there is no evidence that they do.

A recent study into the effectiveness of chiropractry (lead by the head of alternative medicine studies at a Uni I forget) concluded that chiropractry is, basically, useless.

Please define 'natural remedies'. Surely this includes a vast amount of 'traditional' drugs that are available today, which are simply refined forms of herbal remedies that have been used for centuries.

[Darkscull]

most doctors assume that they don't work because no ones done any tests into whether they work or not (except the chiropractry one, which was aiming to prove that it didn't work, if i remember correctly, and studies like that are almost always biased i think). that is why there is a lack of 'evidence'

however there is lots of evidence that stuff like this does work, for example people having open heart surgery with no pain-killers apart from acupuncture.
my mother has problems with her neck, the doctors she saw about it agree.
she then went to a chiropractor, who fixed it, and the doctors now agree that there is nothing wrong with it any more. i don't know exactly what kind of study those people did, but it looks as though they didn't actually test anything, just assumed.

many 'natural remedies' are the basis of conventional medicines that are available today. therefore they should work, yes?
but the people who make these modern drugs based on old drugs are the people who deny that the old ones work. methinks they're thinking more about buisness than helping people.

modern drugs may be refined versions of these herbal things, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are better. it does mean they're more expensive (unless you go to some posh herbal remedy place like celebrities do) and often more powerful than is actually needed.
if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Roxsie]

Darkscull's mum is very high up in the Nhs and she encourages people with back pain to see a chiropedist. A friend of hers did his back in and was perscribed physiotherapy for it by his GP. Darkscull's mum disagreed with this and suggested he tried a chiropractor. He went to the physio for a couple of months with no improvement. He then listened to Darkscull's mum and went to the chiro with immediate pain relief and after a while he was completely better something his G.P and physiotherapist said was impossible.
(simultaneous posting, great minds eh?)

Who was that study done by? What were their reasons? From what i heard about it they were setting out to prove it didn't work so may have unconciously biased their findings.

[malcolio]

the scientific community are a load of arrogant, conservative swinehunds that refuse to even acknowledge the existence of anything unless they discovered/made it up themselves.
Woo for huge generalisations of an extremely large group of people! It makes me feel all warm and gooey inside!

I'm with mrsnuffles, I think that if a remedy does work, a doctor would prescribe it, but then why are all these alternative medicines alternative then? I'd prefer having some sources backing up all these claims about such-and-such a therapy being proven/disproven, rather then single witness statements.

As for me, I'll use whatever medicine helps make me better, I don't care if it's alternative or not. Luckily for me so far I haven't really needed to use medicine, and even when I do get a cold I normally can't be bothered or am too cheap to buy any pills.

[Darkscull]

i shall degeneralise it slightly then.

the scientific community that publishes stuff in the big science journals and decide what projects are worth looking into and such.
anyone from that group that starts looking into or talking about things that arn't accepted as 'scientific' is immediately kicked out of that group. so therefore i think i can safely say that everyone in that group either fits with what i said before, or is pretending to so that they can still work.

As for me, I'll use whatever medicine helps make me better, I don't care if it's alternative or not.

good for you, i wish more people would keep that in mind, instead of just going with whatever the doctors or adverts say.


has anyone noticed that prescription drugs are starting to be advertised? i've seen many adverts now saying 'ask your doctor to prescribe: THIS'. that kind of defies the point of prescription, doesn't it? the whole idea is that the doctor suggests (prescribes) a regime of treatment. if you choose it, then it may as well be off the shelf stuff.

[Roxsie]

Well doctors are paid by the companies to advertise and perscribe certain drugs. So why not just make it more blatant?

[Nicodemus]

Hey guys, you can cast your skepticism aside (for massage anyway).

Massage therapy is, indeed, prescribed by doctors and covered by insurance. Why? Because research has proven that massage therapy is indeed beneficial in reducing stress, improving circulation, repairing structural problems, improving posture, and restoring flexibility.

However, asking, "If it works, why doesn't a doctory prescribe it" is something like asking, "Well, if public transport works, why don't car salesmen suggest it?" Doctors don't make money from remedies that work. I know that quite a cynical view of it, but I've seen it happen. My mother, a nurse, has seen it happen. Doctors either don't believe in it because it's not what they learned, or they don't prescribe it because they know it'll cut into their practice. Sad, but true in my exprience.

A better way to tell if something has been accepted as treatment is to see if it's covered by insurance. Currently, Healing Touch (which my mother practices) is covered by insurance, which is even more "alternative" than massage. I don't know enough about it to explain it thoroughly, so click here (http://www.healingtouchprogram.com/) for more info.

[Darkscull]

nicodemus taking the cynical view? i never thought i'd see the day.

that is a good point.
what you said about doctors is probably true in quite a lot of cases, which gives a reason why they might not prescribe an alternative method even if it works.
and also implying that alternative methods might work is that insurance companies (who are notoriously stingy with money and such) want you to be as well as possible (so that you won't claim), and will therefore research into anything that is likely to get you on your feet as soon, and as effectively, as possible.

[mrsnuffles]

Well doctors are paid by the companies to advertise and perscribe certain drugs. So why not just make it more blatant?

They are not paid. That would be illegal. Company reps give them lunches/cheap stuff with drug names on/medical textbooks etc. Yes, you may still consider this unethical. However, if you trust your doctor with your life, surely you trust them not to give you a drug simply because they were given a ruler with its name on.

most doctors assume that they don't work because no ones done any tests into whether they work or not (except the chiropractry one, which was aiming to prove that it didn't work, if i remember correctly, and studies like that are almost always biased i think). that is why there is a lack of 'evidence'

I tried to find the study into chiropractory using Medline, which is a medical database. I couldn't find it, unfortunately. However, when searching for 'alternative medicine', I got tens of thousands of hits. That's quite a lot of studies. There is still no evidence for many alternative therapies.


Who was that study done by? What were their reasons? From what i heard about it they were setting out to prove it didn't work so may have unconciously biased their findings.

As I mentioned in my previous post;


A recent study into the effectiveness of chiropractry (lead by the head of alternative medicine studies at a Uni I forget)

the study was lead by a leading figure in alternative medicine. Obviously I was being too subtle when I mentioned this before but he wanted to prove that chiropractry was a success.

As I also mentioned previously, I cannot recall the exact details of the study, just its conclusions. If you really care, I will ask the lecturer who gave the talk on alterntative medicine when I go back to Uni, as he talked about this study. I would like to know why you assume it this study was biased. Does this have any basis, or are you simply not letting the truth get in the way of a good point?

[Darkscull]

when i heard about this study, it was mentioned as being to prove chripractry ineffective. it is my understanding that whenever people set out to prove something wrong, they almost always do, no matter what people have said in other studies. is that a coincidence?

[Nicodemus]

Here's an example for you:

The President of the company for which I work is a napropath. He has a doctorate. He, however, cannot call himself "Dr." Why? Chiropractors. Napropaths believe that you can effect a greater change in the structure of the body by manipulating soft tissue, rather than bone. Chiropractors, obviously, manipulate bone. If napropaths were allowed to advertise and practice as the doctors they are, they'd put chiropractors out of business because which would you rather have done to you: someone moving your muscles (which are meant to move) or your spine (which was not meant to move)?

[Darkscull]

when your spine is out of shape from lifting heavy things improperley or something then i think straightening it (or rather putting it back to normal, which isn't quite straight i think) is better than fiddling with muscles.
however if you've sprained a muscle in your leg or something, then you're gonna want that sorted, not your bones.

the two arn't exactly mutually exclusive methinks.

[Nicodemus]

Usually, when the spine is out of alignment, it is not because the bones themselves have actually moved. It is because the muscles and fascia around it have been injured and are pulling it out of alignment because they have gone into contraction. Nothing in the body is "mutually exclusive." It is because of this that manipulating soft tissue is the preferred method. Soft tissues such as muscles and fascia can pull on joints and bones. Bones don't move on their own. They need muscles to make them move. The only time your skeletal structure requires adjustment to the bones themselves is in the case of serious acute injury such as a broken bone.

If your spine is out of alignment, and a chiropractor "adjusts" it without doing anything to the surrounding soft tissue, the soft tissue will move the spine out of alignment again, and you'll back in the office, paying the guy $300 a visit to "adjust" you again.

Dr. Bragg, a prominent chiropractor in my area, works on soft tissue after his adjustments. Now, if there was no creedence to what I'm saying, why does he do that? You may ask, "Why does he even bother adjusting when he's going to do soft tissue work anyway?" Answer: He can practice as a doctor as a chiropractor. He cannot do so as a pure napropath.

Trust me, I know of which I speak. By virtue of my proximity to said professionals, my own career, and my wife's experience with back problems and osteopaths.

[InstaCpu]

Well to add to the comments about herbal medecines, if I'm not mistaken, Hippocrates prescribed chewing the bark of a particular tree (forget which one) for headaches. In fact, this tree's bark contains asa or something close, that is asprin.

As for myself, I can say the Chinese acupuncturist I see works in a clinic side by side with traditional and "alternative" doctors. All are recognised by the insurance system (Swiss to be precise). Also, in Asia these treatments are "mainstream."

As for scientific explanations, well I've read acupuncture stimulates the release of hormones among other things. In my particular case, one of the worst effects of eczema is the itching...which leads to scratching. The worst is when I scratch my hands against various and sundry objects...table edge etc. which can cause infection and more irritation. I do try to use lotions and resist the tempation. However the acupunture DOES deaden the itching for me, it could be action on the nerves that calms this feeling. I don't see why there would not have been research into this.

Now another question I have is about the placebo effect. How much of a factor is this? Could it be a reason why certain treatments work, and why therefore insurance companies cover it? If insurance companies cover some of these treatments there must be some thing to it, would you agree?

[Nicodemus]

One more thing on Chiropractic vs. Napropathic:

My wife had 3 herniated discs in her back. Her osteopath said that had she seen a chiropractor instead of coming in her for her MRI (which many people do with back pain, though hers was much worse than most), he would have made her condition 100 times worse. Sometimes people do into a chiropractor without frist seeing an osteopath (who is the only one of the three [chiro, napro, osteo] that can order the correct tests, but that's a rant for another topic) because they've advertised themselves as the end-all, be-all of the spine, when they are far from it.

[harpic]

Alternative medicine is the wrong title I feel. Complementary medicine would be more appropriate

With todays medicolegal attitudes, doctors HAVE to prescribe treatments that have been proven by rigorous study or experience - evidence based medicine. Doctors are tightly regulated by various bodies to ensure that the treatment they advise or administer is in keeping with best practice.

NOW.... there is little or no regulation of alternative/natural/complementary therapies. If you look at treatments on a case by case basis, you will always find the 'my mum's friends dog had a massage and it cured cancer'. There is a practice in Mexico which costs thousands of administering coffee enemas as a treatment for Cancer. Personally I prefer drinking my coffee and I am sure it has the same effect ;) The question in these therapies is have they been studied to show a benefit to all or most. The answer there is no. There is a large body of experience in certain therapies like acupuncture etc from China and I am sure there is some value in treatments like these.

Ok enough ranting. Bottom line, conventional medicine works and is proven in the majority of cases of disease it treats. Alternative can be a lot of hocus pocus or can have some benefit. It is benefits you - go for it. Most likely it won't do any harm, it may or may not do some good.

I personally think its hocum but I'm cynical