The terrible harm that alternative medicine can do

[HuckleB]

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/jeremy-laurance-the-terrible-harm-that-alternative-medicine-can-do-1864772.html

"...

Advocates of homeopathy, nutritional therapy and similar treatments often promote their remedies with the promise that, unlike conventional medicine, they are natural, kind and can do no harm. If only it were true.

The former South African Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who died before Christmas, advocated "natural" treatments for HIV based on beetroot, wild garlic and the African potato. Together with Thabo Mbeki, the former president, she was chiefly responsible for the African National Congress government's delaying for years the distribution of anti-retroviral drugs to patients with HIV and Aids. While Mr Mbeki publicly questioned the link between the virus and the disease, Dr Beetroot advised patients the cure lay in the cooking pot. Their policies, according to a Harvard University study, cost the lives of more than 300,000 people. Who would have thought beetroot could kill on such a scale?

...

Three years ago, a survey of ten clinics by Sense about Science found they offered homeopathic pills claimed to prevent not just malaria but other diseases including typhoid, dengue fever and yellow fever. The Hospital for Tropical Diseases warned at the time that it had treated people who thought they were protected and had contracted malaria.

One of the most memorable quacks I have come across in the last decade was Professor Charles Ssali, an ENT surgeon who qualified in England before returning to his native Uganda to "do research" into Aids. I visited his clinic in Kampala where he was handing out Mariandina, a concoction of vitamins made in Greenford, Middlesex, at £60 a month, four times the average monthly salary. He claimed to have treated 17,000 patients and obtained an 80 per cent cure rate. The "medicine" was refused a licence by the Ugandan government but he later promoted it in Britain, earning himself a rebuke from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, of which he had been a member, which posted a note on its website suspending him. Professor Ssali died in 2004.

..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum:

Malaria & homeopathy
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/71

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


When will we learn to stop following so many loud ducks?

[stray cat]

1. No FDA Oversight; No requirement that there is a real ingredient as stated or just dirt

[HuckleB]

6. And yet the taxpayers are on the hook to "study" the water.

[northzax]

26. not for homeopathic remedies

most of those, you can pretty much say or do anything you like, as long as you don't actively cause harm, or claim it will actually do something. the only drugs reviewed by the FDA are those that claim to actually do something, a direct connection to taking it.

[HuckleB]

30. Spend some time here...

http://www.hylands.com/

Are you telling me they are not claiming their homeopathic offerings will actually do something?

And have you never heard of NCCAM? http://nccam.nih.gov/

[northzax]

39. they walk a very fine line

and always mention that it 'relieves symptoms' not addresses the underlying cause.

and yes, I know of NICCAM. what's the point?

[HuckleB]

43. The point is that money is going to "study" treatments that have very little evidence of benefit.

That's money that is not going to study things with a stronger evidence base that the science may lead to cures and benefits. Thus, the taxpayers are on the hook for something that does not have to meet the same standards as "non-alternative" research. That's unethical, to me.

And that fine line is pure BS. It's time to regulate.

[northzax]

105. Oh, I agree.

Most homeopathic treatments are useless. But that doesn't mean they all are. I have no problem with research money being used to study things that are widely believed to have value, even if it is only to debunk them. Research for research's sake isn't a waste, you never know what you'll find.

[HuckleB]

117. Show me one homeopathic treatment that is not useless as anything but a placebo.

Thanks.

[JoeyT]

145. All of them are remarkably useful for curing a specific condition.

That condition being dehydration, of course. That's pretty much it.

Of course we all know after the studies find that homeopathy doesn't do a damned thing all the people pushing it will stop selling water as medicine, right? Of course they will. ;)

[HuckleB]

175. +1

[HuckleB]

75. What can Acupuncture Treat?

http://www.brooklyncommunityacupuncture.com/faq.html

* Chronic pain
* Musculoskeletal disorders
* Arthritis
* Fibromyalgia
* Women's health
* Diabetes
* Headache & migraines
* Post-stroke syndromes
* Insomnia & depression
* Hypertension
* Digestive disorders
* Cancer management
* Allergies & asthma
* Colds & influenza
* Immune system disorders
* Addictions
* and more - ask us!

What is the evidence base for these treatments. (I know there is some base for some acupuncture.) But could an MD make such claims with such a small evidence base?

[northzax]

107. Well, they can say 'accupuncture has been shown to treat...'

But they can't say 'accupuncture will help your X' they can say 'compounds in green tea have been shown to reduce heart attacks and stroke' they can't say ' this green tea will help you'.

[HuckleB]

118. No MD would get away with that.

[laughingliberal]

125. Yep. That is a suspect list.

As you said, there is some basis for acupuncture for treating some conditions. It is the lack of any real study in the area of alternative health remedies (and, no, I'm not talking about homeopathy) that allows the quacks in the industry to continue to make whatever claims. If it's not studied you can say it's not proven but you can not say it's disproven.

Interesting whenever I think of fibromyalgia. I've had it for over 20 years-since before it had a name. Once it had a name most of the doctors in the US believed it didn't exist-no study, they just didn't believe it. It was a doctor from England who first diagnosed me and told me most US doctors believed it wasn't real. He then told me of the studies done in England and what they did know and how much they still could not explain. Of course, now that some outrageously expensive drug has been developed to treat it, it must be real! Imagine that! Now that they've discovered the presence of the xmrv retrovirus infection in a high percentage of CFS/Fibromyalgia patients it is being studied and taken seriously. How funny is that for me? I was telling doctors for years that it acted like a viral infection. The closest we got before was at the beginning when they though EBV might be the culprit. Then they found FMG patients did not have EBV in numbers greater than the general population. I always thought EBV was involved but was shut down by doctors on this. Now, they find xmrv and are studying its ability to reactivate dormant viruses in people such as EBV. But anyone who postulates anything that hasn't been proven yet is just 'woo.' Not even an acknowledgement that it might be but we don't know, yet-it's just 'woo.' A lot of things people once labeled 'woo' are now proven. And a lot of sacred cows of scientific dogma and drugs developed and tested in double blind placebo controlled studies have been proven just as deadly as any alternative therapies out there.

American medicine suffers from a horrible arrogance that won't allow them to admit to the existence of anything they don't understand. This hurts the cause of science. Those things they refuse to look at can't be proven, can't be disproven. This attitude here does as much to let the wild claims persist as anything else. It probably sets us back on some discoveries that would be useful. And it allows the quacks in the industry to keep on with unproven claims.

[Celebration]

128. exactly

No drug for fibromyalgia=no such thing as fibromyalgia

Drug for fibromyalgia=fibromyalgia big problem

About sums up the AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

[HuckleB]

135. Hardly.

That's a load of crap.

[BuddhaGirl]

234. +1000

n/t

[HuckleB]

235. .

:rofl:

[BuddhaGirl]

236. thanks!

your posts are funny too - a great source of amusement, for sure!

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

237. I'm glad you can convince yourself of that.

Actually, I guess it's not hard to convince you of much.

:rofl: :rofl:

[BuddhaGirl]

238. oh my

you are funny...rofl

I think there is a homeopathic remedy for this obsession of yours :-) It's called Calms, by Hylands. It might help with what's ailing you :-)

[HuckleB]

239. $2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/

PS -- http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/studies_show_alternative_medicine

[BuddhaGirl]

249. doesn't matter much to me

but thanks anyway...I do what works for me :hi:

[HuckleB]

252. You spend money on placebos.

You've made that clear. And it's currently legal.

Ignoring the harm of homeopathy is unethical, however. Apparently ethics are not something that concern you.

I'd recommend spending some time here: http://whatstheharm.net/

[BuddhaGirl]

253. I'd recommend that you not over dramatize

your opinion about the "harm" regarding homeopathy...really...I think you would be much less stressed out about it :-)

And yes - I will spend money on it because it, well, works for me!

[HuckleB]

254. A spoonful of sugar is cheaper.

And then you can save a little.

And I'm over-dramatizing anything. That's your attempt to justify a scam.

[Confusious]

258. Ha! Post 125 blown out of the water

"There are no studies that proven it does or doesn't work"

Even if there are studies, woowoo people will still believe in it.

[omega minimo]

154. Have you ever looked into answering your own questions

rather than badgering others?

[HuckleB]

193. Yes.

Remember: I'm not the one coming here trying to defend treatments that have little to no evidence base. You are.

[slackmaster]

2. K&R

In before the brave defenders of everything "alternative".

:kick:

[Juche]

4. Defending everthing "alternative" is as bad as writing off everything "alternative"

[slackmaster]

7. Yes, you're absolutely right about that

:hi:

[FLAprogressive]

3. Your homeopathic remedy is almost ready!

[HuckleB]

93. I want that poster!

[HuckleB]

5. I normally welcome the anti-science unrec community of DU.

But in this case, it appears that by giving this thread an unrec, you are promoting sick practices that lead to huge numbers of deaths. That just seems wrong. I guess I'm wondering how anyone can justify it. It's kind of like giving an unrec to the silent thread for the earthquake victims.

[Better Today]

10. Have you seen the huge numbers of hospital and medical deaths

caused by your regaled scientific medical industrial complex?

Sorry, but not everything works for everything, nor everyone, nor everywhere. Whenever health, or lack thereof, is involved, shit happens.

[HuckleB]

13. I'm surprised how long it took for this red herring to pop up.

That does not justify pushing quack remedies.

Try again.

[Better Today]

28. For some issues, alternative medicine works.

I haven't seen a dr. since 1990, and I've used self taught homeopathy and ingredients not packaged by others in capsules or otherwise for numerous issues and illnesses. Except for an issue I posted about last week, CA_MRSA, which is nearly healed up as we speak, I'm healthier now than ever.

However I'm not suggesting anyone to turn from medicine as you describe it, but many of us do find very reasonable solutions with natural ingredients.

Just for an example, how many on here do you suppose, either legally or not, have been using marijuana for a variety of issues? For me it is to stop cluster headaches and maintain a weight over 95#s, though I still only manage about 105# on a fat day. Perfectly natural, non-medical solution that most people see a use for regarding at one person in their community, family, or friends.

[HuckleB]

37. Placebos are great. (No, I'm not calling marijuana a placebo.)

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/108

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/SenseAboutHomeopathy.pdf

Nor am I calling marijuana alternative. It's funny how things lose that label when they've been proven to work.

[Better Today]

45. Everything I used is proven to work as well, maybe not as quickly

or as painlessly as taking a pill (oops, I forget, so many pills have side effects meaning you have to take more pills for those discomforts).

For example the kitchen is full of antibiotics and chemicals with provable characteristics.

Yogurt is an excellent solution for yeast infections for example, if caught early enough. One thing I've learned after going natural and personally responsible for my health, one has to stay on top of things, can't let them get out of hand.

Lemon juice compresses overnight are an excellent solution for Hidradenitis suppurativa which is a probably genetic vaginal skin disorder.

Sorry, these are not placebo effects. Either one has a yeast infection, and us women know when we have a yeast infection, or you don't. Placebo won't help.

Same with Hidradenitis suppurativa, it's not like one could imagine one, trust me on that.

[HuckleB]

46. Please offer us links to the peer-reviewed, double blind trials that prove your claims.

Thanks.

[Better Today]

52. You seem to think that there's incentive in giving any credence

to natural solutions that won't bring in profits for the medical society. Naive much?

The biggest issue I've had is in diagnosis, not solutions. It is often quite difficult to diagnose correctly the first time round, . . .oh, wait, doctors make this mistake all the time too. Prior to giving up on drs. I was misdiagnosed with five separate issues. It doesn't help that I'm a woman, (read by drs. as hypochondriac).

In the decades since I've walked away I've "cured" my deep cystic acne, resolved chronic yeast infections, found out I didn't have herpes (I knew I couldn't have herpes, but drs. insisted and didn't test) but had what is mentioned above and found a solution, no more cluster headaches or extreme pain narcotics that went with, chronic ear wax and related drainage, . . . and so much more that has happened since including injuries and illnesses.

I know I won't change your mind, but your disrespect based on medicals not doing peer reviews is just plain naive. It took years and thousands of people fighting over marijuana to get those peer reviews. No one is interested in peer reviewing lemon juice, or yogurt, no money in it.

[HuckleB]

55. Diagnosis is an issue.

We have much to learn about the body and disease. Duh.

Being diagnosed by quacks isn't going to increase the odds of a correct diagnosis.

Now, I guess you can't answer my request. So I suppose you'll go off in another direction or just ignore me.

[Better Today]

57. I did answer your request. Choose to ignore it if you want. In the end

whether it be natural or medical, a solution has to work for me. Most of the medical choices made on my behalf caused more harm and discomfort than they helped. Not all meds work for all people. And as mentioned most of the diagnoses were careless and wrong when I went to drs.

I don't get diagnosed by quacks, nor drs. I get educated, sometimes I'm wrong for a while, but sooner or later, I must figure it out, or I wouldn't have solved so many of my own issues.


As far as ignoring you, I don't put anyone on ignore. On the other hand I'll likely ignore you from here on this topic because you are rude, patronizing, and wrong when it comes to my experiences. I know the improvement in my life since I swore off the medical society, you being a jerk isn't going to change that.

[HuckleB]

59. No, you didn't answer it.

[Better Today]

78. Then repeat it, all I see is a demand for peer reviewed articles,

which I addressed. Not to your liking, but it is addressed.

[HuckleB]

82. In other words, you can't answer it.

You're treating yourself with placebos, and you're pretending to be "your own expert."

Sorry, I've lived too long to buy such nonsense.

[Celebration]

129. you are making a claim here

That something that hasn't been yet been proven to your satisfaction is a placebo.

Can you support that?

How can you claim that something is the placebo effect when it has not even been tested in trials?

[HuckleB]

136. In science based medicine, you prove that the treatment works better than placebo.

That's basic.

Your illogical attempt at forcing others to prove a negative shows how little you either understand or care about actual science.

[Celebration]

140. But that is different

From a claim that everything that hasn't been tested is a "placebo".

In fact, that claim makes no sense at all, sans some sort of trial.

[omega minimo]

157. Why yes, yes it is. Thank you for pointing that out. As well as "that claim makes no sense at all"

:hi:

[HuckleB]

162. Nice spin.

The majority of what has been tested has been generally shown to be no better than placebo. What hasn't been tested is often stuff that its practitioners don't want to be studies.

Now why is that?

[Celebration]

177. Do you have proof of that?

You keep making claims without evidence. I thought you promoted "science."

[HuckleB]

181. Are you saying NCCAM hasn't done any studies?

Are you saying no studies about this are ever posted at DU?

I could waste my time, reposting stuff, but, you and your pals have made it clear that you don't care, so why should I?

Why should I post what you already know? Intellectual dishonesty aimed at making someone else spend time finding current links is simply game playing.

On edit, here's a few bites...


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=258

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2996

http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2009/01/yet-one-more-radically-pointless.html

[Celebration]

186. what is the evidence

that studies are not wanted?

And, really, a negative study on one substance does NOT mean that some other substance doesn't work. In fact, it doesn't even mean the first one doesn't work, only that it is not proven to work in that particular protocol. You really can't make generalizations from a negative study on one substance, saying that another one won't work for something different.

Really, again, this is not at all logical.

[HuckleB]

189. So no response other than that?

That's exactly what I figured. I post some examples, and you rant about how those are only examples. You want me to prove a negative, because you can't prove a positive. That's what is not logical.

Now, if you haven't read the excuses from homeopaths and others trying to say that their treatments can't be studied, that's not my fault. But I'm tired of playing your games. If you can't discuss this with intellectual honesty, then I'm not going to waste my time, anymore.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3344

[Celebration]

200. First you talk about NCCAM

Then you talk about homeopathy.

Since when has NCCAM studied homeopathy? Maybe they have, but if so, it is very little.

If you are talking about NCCAM, then I naturally assume that you mostly mean studies on vitamins and herbs. But then you say most of them don't want studies? I don't know anyone that doesn't want studies on vitamins and herbs. They may disagree on the various methodologies needed to appropriately study them, but I have NEVER heard people say they don't want studies. As far as I am concerned, a negative study offers about as much information as a positive one. It makes no difference. You learn something from all of them.

As for homeopathy people often not wanting studies, that may be true. But that is an entirely separate subject than studies that NCCAM has done.

[HuckleB]

201. "and others"

Since you refuse to do anything but pick one little bite and respond to that, while ignoring the whole of the post, I'm done with this discussion. It appears that you know nothing about NCCAM or much of anything on this issue, anyway.

Bye.

[Celebration]

226. Just gotta say.

I love your "Bye"s.

Much better than your "red herring"s.

:)

[omega minimo]

156. These are just repetitive talking points.

You're probably not even looking at the keyboard, just pushing a button that lobs a list from Randi's site.

[HuckleB]

163. You proved that you were just arguing against a poster of your own imagination.

And now you want to attack me for seeing that?

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

168. .

:scared::freak:

[HuckleB]

171. Must be what you see in your mirror.

[omega minimo]

153. "your disrespect based on medicals not doing peer reviews is just plain naive."

Better Today has answered you and you are dismissive and insulting. Don't play as if you are taking the high road. :thumbsdown:

"You seem to think that there's incentive in giving any credence to natural solutions that won't bring in profits for the medical society. Naive much?":

[HuckleB]

173. No, I'm not.

Anecdotes do not suffice to support snake oil, or any other type of medicine.

That's not hard to understand.

[JoeyT]

146. If you're talking about lemon juice and yogurt

you're not really talking about alternative medicine. Each has been shown to help the conditions you're referring to. We know how they work and how they help.

When people refer to alternative medicine, they're talking about homeopaths trying to cure things with water, chiropractors insisting they can cure things that have nothing to do with the spine, colloidal silver, acupuncture, faith healers, crystal peddlers, etc. All of which claim to be able to cure absolutely anything and none of whom can prove they can cure anything at all.

[omega minimo]

155. The people who know about alternative medicine

know that it includes nutrition and use of herbs and other natural products, internally or topically. Not sure where you are getting your misinformed "correct" definition from. That will surely hobble you in constructive discussion of the topic.

Also mistaken is tossing in "faith healers, crystal peddlers, etc." for the sole purpose of discrediting alternative medicine, which is much broader and diverse than your hippie cliches.

"All of which claim to be able to cure absolutely anything and none of whom can prove they can cure anything at all."

One "proof" is what works for people -- which the sciencyists vehemently discount; any actual personal experience is rejected by them. One Major aspect of alternative medicine is PREVENTION. And many people turn to and are HELPED and healed by alternative medicine when conventional medicine and conventional practitioners abandon them.

[HuckleB]

174. So you're saying that the placebo effect doesn't exist.

If you're not, then your post just went down in flames.

This is basic logic here.

[JoeyT]

233. Another quite common tactic from the alt med crowd.

And frauds in general is to point out all the other frauds while claiming they, and only they, have the secret to (insert desire here).
It's kind of a bizarre variation on the True Scotsman fallacy. "Sure I believe in demons, but you'd have to be crazy to believe in fairies. Don't lump me in with THOSE people." Even though it's obvious to anyone that isn't emotionally invested in a specific group that they're all pretty much the same, people within those groups will all deny it and call one another all manner of names.
A fun thought experiment for believers in woodoo is to ask which altie stuff works and what doesn't. Then ask what they're basing it on. The result usually looks something like it does when you ask religion X why religion Y is wrong.

So homeopathy works but faith healing and crystals don't? Where's the evidence for that? I see you cite the illustrious "People say it works for them.", but the same is said of faith healers, crystal sellers, psychics, astrologers, dowsers, past life regression therapists, wizards, witches, demonologists, COS satanists, breatharians, shamans, *deep breath* astral walkers, mediums, tarot readers, herbal healers, houngan/mambo, alphabiotics, kinesiologist, cupping, candling, leeching, escharotics, exorcists, iridology, feng shui, hypnotist, and so on. (Let's pretend that's an exhaustive list. There's probably easily over a thousand more things that could go in it, but if I go looking things up I'll be here all night.)

So what makes homeopathy different from those things?

It isn't the fact that there's science behind it. The people that practice it like to spout lots of physics terms they picked up, but it's obvious to anyone that's actually studied physics they've never actually read a textbook. At best they skimmed the index. Quantum is likely to be mentioned several times, not a single mention of which will use it correctly. Their math is crappy too. They attribute things to water molecules that we know water doesn't do.

It isn't effectiveness. It's been shown over and over to be no more effective at treating anything than placebo.

It isn't logic, either. By the logic of homeopathy, every drop of water on the planet has come in contact with every substance on the planet at some time or another. So technically all the water in the world is already a homeopathic medicine by virtue of existing.

As I pointed out, "People say it works for them." isn't really a valid reason to accept something. People say that about *everything*.
So what empirical evidence is there that homeopathy is any different from leaving sweetened milk out for the fairies and showing the evil eye to ward off curses? Remember, if anecdotes work for homeopathy, they work for all that other stuff too. That's why scientists tend to dismiss anecdotal claims: They can't be falsified, they're based on a possibly flawed recounting of a possibly flawed perception of an event, and they're used to support absolutely everything.

[HuckleB]

241. Good post.

Thanks for adding it to the thread.

[omega minimo]

242. I made no such claim. But you did.

"Another quite common tactic from the alt med crowd. And frauds in general is to point out all the other frauds while claiming they, and only they, have the secret to (insert desire here)."

That has nothing to do with what I posted. However, it is you who claimed you and only you, have the definition of ________:

"When people refer to alternative medicine, they're talking about homeopaths trying to cure things with water, chiropractors insisting they can cure things that have nothing to do with the spine, colloidal silver, acupuncture, faith healers, crystal peddlers, etc."

I don't know where these toxic attitudes come from or why they all have the same set of talking points, bullshit games and hostile behavior, but the fact that you misread -- intentionally or not -- my post so badly and continue spouting false accusations, makes the rest of your post unreadable. You -- and all the other people who act this way, incapable of anything resembling discussoin -- are not credible or worth the time.

[HuckleB]

246. Wow! That is some powerful denial you've got there.

WOW!

:crazy:

[Confusious]

260. You don't like what you hear

So you accuse someone of having "Toxic attitudes" "talking points" "bullshit games" "hostile behavior". "You will not challenge my belief in FAIRIES!" Sounds a lot like some other people we talk about here.

One thing about "Talking points". Science is wonderful in the fact that everyone can do EXACTLY the same thing as the scientist. You aren't doing to hear 30 explanations on how atoms get together. There are 2. Ionic and covalent. and covalent is just a stronger ionic. THATS why they sound like talking points, when they aren't. It's science.

[Confusious]

259. I prevented a nuclear war

Can you prove I didn't?

[HuckleB]

255. When Did Diet And Exercise Become “Alternative Medicine?”

http://getbetterhealth.com/when-did-diet-and-exercise-become-alternative-medicine/2009.01.10

[LeftyMom]

123. Wait a minute, you haven't seen a doctor since 1990, but you've diagnosed and are treating yourself

for MRSA?

Pray tell, how did you diagnose MRSA as opposed to some other infectious agent?

[Warpy]

14. Have you ever looked at the number of cures

and treatments that allow people to live reasonable lives when quack "cures" would have left them disabled or dead?

I didn't think so.

[HuckleB]

15. +1

Post of the day.

[Better Today]

53. No, because that number is entirely unprovable, once a choice

is made, it's alternatives cannot be effectively judged.

[Warpy]

12. All I have to say to the alt med purists who unrec this thread is

(_|_)

Alternative medicine has its place, the placebo effect is real.

However, trying to use it for anything potentially fatal is insane. Pushing its use for anything potentially fatal is criminal in this country and should be elsewhere.

Mbeki should be in prison for the holocaust he caused South African HIV patients.

[HuckleB]

120. Shouldn't it be called "placebo medicine," if that's the case?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

I helped fix that

FDA blessing is not the be all - end all, but some of the crap passing as alternative medicine is deceitful and lethal.

[HuckleB]

60. Thanks. And exactly. -eom-

[MercutioATC]

8. Neither traditional nor alternative medicine is 100% of the answer.

Both have their places and both have value.

Suggesting that either traditional or alternative treatments are "always dangerous" or "always appropriate" is foolish.


...as any responsible practitioner of alternative therapy will confirm.

[HuckleB]

11. Unfortunately, too much on the alternative side is being pushed with no evidence base.

[MercutioATC]

24. That's a result of greed, not a failure of alternative medicine.

Traditional medicine is strictly regulated. It's difficult to perpetuate a scam.

Alternative medicine is almost completely unregulated...which draws a lot of snake oil salesmen.

[Better Today]

32. Exactly. Trusting a homeopath without doing your own research

is no more intelligent than taking prescriptions without doing your own research.

Carelessness and mistakes abound in health care whether medical or natural.

[JoeyT]

147. That will be some short research.

It's all water. Just water.
You can't overdose, it's water. Underdosing isn't possible either because it's water. Quality control happened back at the water treatment plant. How can someone be careless or make a mistake when all they're doing is filling a bottle of water? Spilling it? Dropping the bottle and cutting themselves on the shards?

[laconicsax]

230. An overdose on homeopathic remedies is typically called "drowning."

[HuckleB]

38. Ah, but if there was more of an evidence base to alternative medicine....

then legitimate practitioners would call for oversight.

Right?

Why wouldn't they want to keep the snake oil folks out?

[TalkingDog]

143. As opposed to modern medicine? (which is the 3rd leading cause of death in the US)

According to Dr. Barbara Starfield's 2000 report, the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

Put your money where your mouth is and show me the stats that put alternative medicine anywhere near that figure even without "evidence".


Interview via: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

Q:Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the effects of the US medical system?

A:NO.


Q: Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

A: Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into a untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Q: Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

A: They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Q: Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

A: Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.


Q: Do medical schools in the US, and intern/residency programs in hospitals, offer significant “primary care” physician training and education?

A: NO. Some of the most prestigious medical teaching institutions do not even have family physician training programs family medicine departments. The federal support for teaching institutions greatly favors specialist residencies, because it is calculated on the basis of hospital beds.


Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates than I calculated.


Q: 106,000 people die as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines. I believe that was your point in your 2000 study. Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of “correctly prescribed.” Therefore, people who die after “overuse” or “inappropriate use” would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 and would fall into another or other categories.

A: Appropriate’ means that it is not counter to regulations. That does not mean that the drugs do not have adverse effects.

[HuckleB]

144. And yet another poster offers up the usual red herring.

Read the thread before posting BS, please.

[TalkingDog]

160. Highly regarded, well verified studies by respected researchers are BS?

Your headline verbatim: The terrible harm that alternative medicine can do.

I'm asking you AGAIN: As opposed to modern medicine? SHOW ME THE STATS! Or as a refreshing change of pace, you and your fundamentalist FDA lovers can Stop Telling False Untruths.

Both systems have their flaws. There are systems of alternative care that have been studied in backward-assed countries like France, England, Belgium, Canada...you know those places we think have such sucky health care we want to model our system after theirs.. and you know what? They don't seem to have the same attitude as you do. They've funded studies, they've drawn their conclusions. And it seems to be in direct opposition to yours. Yet somehow, in spite of all the flaws with modern medicine, seemingly no stats to back up a measurement against alternative medicine, and all those scientists, researchers and medical professionals from all those other countries, YOU KNOW BETTER.

Wow. Quite a set you've got there. Are they brass?

[HuckleB]

164. Ever heard of the term context?

Without it you've got nothing.

Do you understand what a red herring is?

[Confusious]

261. You have some brass ones yourself

Comparing 100,000 deaths to saving millions of lives on a daily basis for modern medicine, vs giving out placebos to healthy people.

Every hear of small pox? "Of all those infected, 20–60%—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease." Modern medicine wiped it out.

Not Chinese, not homeopathy, not any "alternative" crap. Modern medicine.

Modern medicine score: 5 billion on this planet

What would you consider the score for "alternative medicine?"

You can make a mistake when you're ACTUALLY trying to cure someone.

[omega minimo]

18. How DARE you

try to provide a balanced perspective and voice of reason to this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

[HuckleB]

19. The actual balance comes via the evidence base.

[omega minimo]

23. in an online discussion? in the attitude of the participants? in the perspective of the researchers?

it's true, this OP is flamebait and look at how fast it turned into Either/Or

[HuckleB]

27. And why is that?

"Perspective of the researchers?" Sorry, but that's going into the GW denier arena.

The evidence needs to come to the fore, and the citizenry needs to start protecting itself from more than "Big Pharma," and lord knows I have plenty of criticism to that end. Too many at DU choose to ignore evidence and the lack of evidence when it comes to basic health care offerings. That's not the fault of this thread, or of me, or the fault of science. We can't continue to ignore the science while more and more of us go down roads that can lead to people taking homeopathy to "protect" themselves from malaria. It's gone too far.

[omega minimo]

34. Those stories are extreme and involve "quacks" in Africa.

Attempting to indict all of homeopathy or alternative medicine is weak.

"We can't continue to ignore the science while more and more of us go down roads that can lead to people taking homeopathy to "protect" themselves from malaria."

"Us"?

[HuckleB]

41. Clinics in Britain pushing homeopathic prevention for Malaria are in Africa?

:shrug:

You can't just repeat yourself. (Well, I guess you can, if you want.) Try responding to my actual posts.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

35. So what is the value of snake oil these days?

[laughingliberal]

9. This is flame bait and belongs in the Health forum, anyway. nt

[HuckleB]

16. Funny that you haven't posted the same for the GD thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7450952

or this one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7449395&mesg_id=7449395

[omega minimo]

20. It's just another Straight Story post..... viewed with all the alarm of all his other odd topcis

[HuckleB]

22. Ah, yes. Got it. I think.

[laughingliberal]

31. The first seems to have tanked on its own and I did not see it

The second link concerns the increase in the suicide rates among vets.I don't see how that would be flame bait or inappropriate in this forum unless we have a group here I don't know about who is pro-verteran suicide. I know the vet center was very alarmed when I called about my Viet Nam vet husband who is deteriorating emotionally since our lives fell apart with the economy. They seem to be very worried about any combat vets right now who are trying to weather the storms and those who have been deployed repeatedly have got to be at risk.

[HuckleB]

47. How is it not flame bait?

It's about suicide. That's very emotional. Oh, and it's a health care matter. So it must belong in the health care forum.

Hey, your rules.

[laughingliberal]

77. I believe it illustrates the effect our wars are having on our vets.

And that is of general concern just as funding for taking care of our soldiers wounded in battle would be. Has implications for spending and our military activities around the world. I believe all those have significant political relevance. Or do we have a group here that is supportive of veteran's suicide who will be offended by trying to bring the problems to light?

[HuckleB]

79. Thank you for using a justification that fits just as well here.

We are in the midst of a huge health care debate, with some legislators trying to sneak in requirements for snake oil treatments. Further, taxpayers are on the hook for NCCAM studies. Thus, this has every bit the relevance that thread had.

Thanks!

[laughingliberal]

84. Probably a drop in the bucket compared to what we're spending to destroy the lives of those who

serve but carry on.

[HuckleB]

86. That doesn't mean we should ignore the matter.

[laughingliberal]

104. I object to the broad brush with which you seem to paint anything

labeled 'alternative.' It is not all the same. Many drugs we use today came from plants and cooperation with botanists. Taxol was discovered in a cooperative effort between a chemist and a botanist. There are some who would call that 'woo.' There are natural substances out there that warrant some study. There is plenty of quackery in alternative health but it is not all quackery. I don't believe homeopathy and nutritional support belong in the same category.

The reluctance of science to explore this, I believe, keeps us from some discoveries that would be useful but there is something of a bias against studying those things from which no one can profit.

I had a rather 'woo' doctor tell me when I was a teenager that he thought stomach ulcers were caused by an infection. My mother thought that was the stupidest thing she ever heard. At that time they still told ulcer patients to drink milk. Hell, when I was in nursing school we were still doing that. How did he know? I have no idea but it sure was an eye opener when we discovered H. Pylori.

So, it is the implication that anything people call 'alternative' should be avoided and no study made of it is counterproductive in my mind. But you are certainly entitled to see it differently.

[HuckleB]

111. You object to science.

I get it.

[laughingliberal]

122. That would be a hard case to make. I've worked at 2 prominent research hospitals and

participated in helping to conduct many human trials of anti-cancer agents. So, it would seem your conclusion is not evidence based.

I object to bias which says anything you decide is 'woo' does not deserve study. You seem to believe that you are the qualified arbiter of 'woo.'

There is much out there that is quackery but there are substances in the natural world that are deserving of some investigation.

Taxol, as I said, was discovered in a cooperative effort between a chemist and a botanist. They studied over 1000 ethanolic extracts of plants before hitting on the anti-tumor activity of Camptotheca acuminata. The USDA was not interested in the research and it was on hold for some time. I was an RN when Taxol was approved by the FDA in the early 90's. I believe the initial sample in which the chemist saw the anti-tumor activity was sent to him around 1958. Over 30 years later Taxol was born and is now in use treating breast cancer and AIDS related Kaposi's sarcoma.

I don't object to science at all. I object to contempt prior to investigation. Nothing can be proven if it hasn't been studied. It's easy enough to say something hasn't been proven. If it hasn't been studied that just means it hasn't been studied. It does not mean it has not been disproven.

[HuckleB]

137. Where you've worked doesn't mean a thing.

Your posts on this thread speak for themselves. And that includes this incredibly dishonest post. You are putting words in my mouth. Why is it that the same tactics are used over and over again by people who don't want to understand science?

[laughingliberal]

139. I understand science very well. Scientific discovery is made by studying not by dismissing

everything out of hand, calling it 'woo,' and refusing to study it. I don't know what tactic used over and over again you refer to but I do think closed minds are unscientific. There is a fatty acid being used to treat diabetes in Germany that is effective and safer than our cardiotoxic Actos and Avandia. It is used as a first line drug for diabetes. Obviously, it does not work for everyone but nothing does. They try it with type II diabetes before prescribing the more toxic drugs. It is sold here as a nutitional supplement but not in doses likely to help. It, actually, is beneficial to the heart unlike the oral hypoglycemics we use as first line drugs and is now being studied there for its effect on diabetic neuropathy. I took care of far too many diabetics with CHF and we constantly battled the fluid retention which resulted from their Actos or Avandia requiring more diuretics and higher doses of ACE inhibitors. It was a vicious cycle. There are no such problems with the patients being treated with the fatty acid I mentioned in Germany. Why is no one here looking into this? Well, obviously, it can't be patented and no one can profit.

Closed minds do not lead to scientific discovery. Hell, if it were up to you we wouldn't be studying xmrv's role in CFS/fibromyalgia now. We'd all be suffering while you and the closed minded doctors of the US called us lazy and those looking for treatments for us would be accused of practicing 'woo.' I'm sure there is plenty of 'woo,' out there but I do not consider you the final word on what is 'woo' and what is not.

Perhaps where I have worked and participated in research is not important but I am getting suspicious that where you work may have everything to do with your bias.

[HuckleB]

142. And, again, you offer dishonest BS.

You are not discussing anything with me. You are ranting against a poster of your own creation.

Bye! I am done with your dishonest nonsense.

[laughingliberal]

149. I seem to recall this being your debate style in other postings of yours

No facts, no proof of the dishonesty of anything I have presented, just your biased assessment of the other person's replies and bail. I am not responding to a poster of my own creation but to one who rants against 'alternative health' without distinguishing any difference between homeopathy and the study of plant materials or nutritional support. No acknowledgement that disciplines you dismiss as 'woo woo' have ever led to the development of any life saving treatments.

Nothing more than what we have come to expect of you. Farewell.

[omega minimo]

158. Well put.

That poster just wastes time and says nothing.

[HuckleB]

166. Oh, the irony!

WOW!

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

184. Substantive! nt

[HuckleB]

185. More irony!

I love it!

:rofl:

Thanks!

[laughingliberal]

188. It appears irony is your word for the day. nt

[HuckleB]

190. It fits!

[laughingliberal]

192. Another it is so because I said it is so response.

Obviously you deeply believe what you post is always the objective truth and the last word on the matter. Your sincere belief does not, nevertheless, make it true. You are not the sole arbiter of objective 'fact.' Your opinion is yours and you are certainly entitled to it. It does not mean others will always agree with you. It does seem this is a problem for you.

[HuckleB]

194. Exactly!

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

195. We have those little smilies on our computers, too

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

196. I'm very happy for you!

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

165. What's funny is that you accuse me of doing what you are doing.

You and your pals have done nothing but attack me personally because you can't offer any facts or information.

Keep up the juvenile crap, but maybe you should point your finger back at yourself.

[laughingliberal]

187. I haven't attacked you, personally, at all

I have said you show a decided bias and an inability to to see any value in areas you have decided are 'woo,' and that you seem to believe you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes 'woo,' but I see that more as an observation than an attack. I also do not see you addressing points I make in my responses such as the discovery of Taxol that was made by a chemist and botanist working together studying substances out of the natural world and weather that study would have been considered 'woo,' when it started. I think most here can see who does not acknowledge the other person's points or even try to refute them. We just see the same old responses:

"you're posts are dishonest"
"juvenile"
"woo woo"

No facts, no discussion. The poster is dishonest or not making sense or 'woo woo' just because you say so. Not compelling, I'm afraid.

[HuckleB]

191. Yes, you have.

You have put words in my mouth, as you do again in this post. You then attack me as something I'm not. That is a personal attack.

Bye.

[laughingliberal]

198. Have not

Now, if my debate style was like yours this is where I would just insert the ROFL icon and be done with it. However, it is not my style. I have put no words in your mouth. I have observed that it appears that you lump anything remotely labeled as 'alternative' into the trash heap of 'woo woo.' If that is not true you certainly have had every opportunity to clarify your position. I do make observations about the way you tend to debate which is to just keep calling people dishonest or what not and never address the substance of their posts. My favorite from you (not yet seen in this thread) is when you don't address any points the poster makes and then accuse them of being "all over the place," or "not making sense," as you said to me in another of your flamefests. It has not a scintilla of honesty, whatsoever.

So, I'll say Bye, too but I doubt you mean it any more this time than the last time you said it upthread.

[HuckleB]

202. I began to put in the laughing icon when it became clear that you would never discuss with honesty.

You love to make excuses for yourself while bashing others, but that's really all you do.

I say bye, and I may come back. I started the thread, and so I probably will. I glad you obsessed on that, however. At least you obsessed on something different for a short period of time.

:popcorn:

Yeah, I like popcorn, too!!!

[laughingliberal]

206. I have only questioned your debate style and your habit of painting all medicine

... which is nominally labeled 'alternative' as 'woo.' I do not subscribe to much that is out there but have pointed out some areas that are worthy of study and some that did, in the past, lead to some breakthroughs. If you do not care to address those points, that is your right. But it is not bashing or a personal attack to make that observation.

[HuckleB]

207. Yes, you have repeated that again and again.

Of course, that is a critique of a poster of your own making, as I have noted repeatedly as well.

I'm sure you will repeat one of your other bites of nonsense. I'll just keep laughing.

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

209. Again, just because you call a post nonsense (or dishonest or whatever else) does not make it so nt

[HuckleB]

211. Since you have done nothing to provide any evidence for any claim that you've made...

what is your point?

:rofl:

[laughingliberal]

215. I think I'm just going to say that my posts and yours are here for all who care to read them and I

will let others come to their own conclusions about supporting evidence for claims made. I'll let it go at that as you and I will, obviously, not agree. I'm okay with that.

[HuckleB]

218. That's nice.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=480

And have a look see at the bottom of this thread.

[BuddhaGirl]

56. flame bait, indeed

unrec'd for that reason

[HuckleB]

58. Science is not flame bait, just because that's a convenient excuse to ignore it.

[G_j]

65. flame away

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

66. Oh, the irony.

WOW!

:crazy:

[G_j]

64. sure is nt

[Better Today]

81. Absolutely correct.

[morningglory]

17. A personal testimony. One time I injured my back and started taking

Ibuprofen several times a day. After years (yipes--but we didn't have the internets then)I started getting peeling skin, like dandruff in my eyebrows, and pink, flakey skin at the corners of my mouth. I just went into my bathroom, being of the Windex school of medicine, I decided I would put everything in the bathroom on it, one day at a time, then if I couldn't find a cure, I would proceed to the kitchen and start applying mustard, mayonnaise, jam, peanut butter, and whatever I could think of till cured. I did not intend to live like that. In the bathroom that day, first I spied Caladryl. It was skin-colored and would not look too unsightly at work in the cubicle, well anyway it beat the hell out of peanut butter or mustard. The condition was cleared up in an hour. Completely. Astonished, I called my sister, who is further along in the Windex school than me, and she said. Caladryl has benedryl in it. You have an allergy. Benedryl is good for allergies. So then I started trying to think what I was allergic to, and voila! Hadda be the ibuprofen.

[HuckleB]

21. It wouldn't be surprising, if you were taking Ibuprofen that frequently.

[omega minimo]

25. There are quacks in every profession. These stories are extreme. Doesn't condemn all of

alternative medicine or homeopathy itself.

[HuckleB]

33. The OP linked to Sense About Science...

...so I'd say it condemns homeopathy, and the great majority of alternative medicine, which is practiced sans an evidence base.

[omega minimo]

40. "Sans an evidence base" is a false statement

If you want to promote black and white thinking and false assumptions based on extreme and rare anecdotes, you have succeeded.

[HuckleB]

44. Really?

So where's the evidence base that proves homeopathy shouldn't be sent to the dustbin of snake oil treatments? And where's the evidence for the great majority of so called "alternative medicine?"

::eyes:

[Better Today]

88. Bingo! You've hit at the heart of it. This is a once a week thing with this OP.

Only his way of thinking is okay with him, which seems to be the whole black and white, natural is black/bad and medical is white/good, completely blind faith.

I would venture to guess HuckaB is a male who has had little or no exposure to medical issues for himself or his family. Nothing else makes sense to me as to his complete blind faith in the goodness of drs., pharma, and all things medical.

[HuckleB]

89. So crap personal attacks are your only response?

That's not a defense for the lack of evidence backing "alternative medicine."

Seriously, all you got is personal nonsense? You know nothing about me, and your post is ludicrously inaccurate. Your attacks on me say much more about you. Try challenging your blind faith. Learn about the placebo effect in depth. The old idiom about knowing a little bit is a very dangerous thing may just fit your situation.

[Better Today]

97. I have not attacked you in the least. Nice try though. I have

answered and responded on topic to everything you directed at me.

This was a response to someone else about you, and the assessment is clearly correct and displayed regularly here on DU. If you think that assessment is a personal attack, I suggest you change yourself and your responses to alleviate the accuracy of the assessment.

[HuckleB]

98. You started with a BS red herring,

Then offered up folksy anecdotes, while pretending to have a basis for your claims, and ignoring the fact that there is no science behind what you are pushing. And now you have attacked me in a very ugly manner. Read your own posts. Look in the mirror, and then tell you didn't attack me in an ugly manner.

[Better Today]

102. A red herring is a subjective term and certainly not a personal attack,

so I'm glad to see you are wrong, even if you are spinning like a Repub to pretend you're not.

[HuckleB]

110. I said you started with a red herring.

Seriously, do you have anything but juvenile BS to offer?

[omega minimo]

108. Bullshit

:evilfrown: why do you all use the same fucked up tactics in the same fucked up way?

[HuckleB]

114. You are the one using the same old crap!

WOW!

:crazy:

[omega minimo]

109. it can't even be called

"thinking"

[HuckleB]

116. Your posts certainly offer no thought.

That much is true.

Your disdain for thought, for evidence and for science is duly noted.

[omega minimo]

124. Your game of "If I say it it's so" is as transparent as every other time someone tries it.

[HuckleB]

134. You keep telling yourself that.

You don't care about science. And that's your issue. Trying to point the finger at who people who do does not change that.

[omega minimo]

152. Another false accusation.

If I didn't care about science, I wouldn't criticize scienciness.

[HuckleB]

167. Scienciness is what you're defending!

Try again.

[omega minimo]

169. Another false statement

You've run out of tries. Your posts are not believable. Clearly running an agenda. :thumbsdown:

[HuckleB]

176. Ah, the old "shill" routine.

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

179. You choose how you present yourself

[HuckleB]

182. You do, too!

And you have chosen how you want me to be in your mind so you can defend the defenseless.

[omega minimo]

243. You have chosen

to be an ass.

[HuckleB]

244. That is your excuse for you own behavior.

You're very good at pointing fingers at others while doing exactly that which you claim others are doing.

PS...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm

[omega minimo]

250. sad

:freak:

I don't know where these toxic attitudes come from or why they all have the same set of talking points, bullshit games and hostile behavior, but the fact that you misread -- intentionally or not -- my posts so badly and continue spouting false accusations, makes the rest of your posts unreadable. You -- and all the other people who act this way, incapable of anything resembling discussoin -- are not credible or worth the time.

[HuckleB]

251. That's hilarious.

:rofl:

[LoZoccolo]

29. Now you know how nutso the unrec squad can be. n/t

[HuckleB]

48. Unfortunately, I do.

[Maru Kitteh]

36. Woo - woo kills. If educated adults who should know better choose hocus pocus bullshit

over logic and reason, earning themselves an early dirt-nap in the process that's one thing, but to hoist the mythology of "homeopathy" on the uninformed, the desperate and the innocent is on par with any war crime in my book.

[omega minimo]

42. Absurd

[HuckleB]

51. That's more correct than you might have known.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2008/jul/24/healthandwellbeing.radovankaradzic

[sam sarrha]

49. acupuncture cured my severe Carpal tunnel...no problems in 6 years

[HuckleB]

50. Thanks for the anecdote.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

67. It cured my frozen shoulder.

[Mimosa]

54. Tried homeopathy: it doesn't work

Homeopathy is quackery. I know it for a fact. Especially the sugar water dilutions.

[sendero]

61. All I can say to your "peer reviewed science"..

... is:

Efalizumab (trade name Raptiva)
Rimonabant (also known as SR141716, Acomplia, etc)
Lumiracoxib
Aprotinin (Trasylol)
Tegaserod (Zelnorm)
Pergolide (Permax)
Ximelagatran (Exanta)
Pemoline (Cylert)
Rofecoxib (Vioxx)
Fen-phen
Celebrex

Just a small sampling of "medical science" "peer reviewed studied" "judged safe and effective by the FDA" drugs that have been recalled and many have KILLED PEOPLE and frankly most of the time the worst "alternative medicine" does is nothing.

[HuckleB]

63. Your red herring does not justify snake oil.

[sendero]

72. It's not .

... a red herring moron, you clearly don't know what a red herring is.

It is a fact, conventional western medicine doesn't have a stellar track record. As I said, at least homeopathy doesn't kill people.

[HuckleB]

74. You didn't read the OP, did you?

Trying homeopathy to prevent things like malaria leads to death. And conventional medicine needs to improve its safety record, but no "alternative medicine" area can touch the reality of what conventional medicine has done to improve quality of life and lengthen the life span.

I do know what a red herring is, and your post fits the definition to a T. You won't and can't address the snake oil nature of most alternative treatments, so you attempt to distract by bashing with the usual crap, out of context, as always.

[sendero]

80. You are clearly suffering from cranial rectal inversion..

.. and you know nothing. If you cannot even admit that Western medicine kills more people in one day that all alternative medicines in a year, then you are ignorant or dishonest.

I don't use homeopathic remedies. But people should be free to if they want. The advertising for that crap isn't anywhere near as repugnant as the advertising for pharmaceuticals I'm bombarded with every time I turn on the TV. Most of which have marginal value at best.

"Medical science" is an oxymoron. The "double blind peer reviewed studies" are done by the pharma's themselves with the "results" reported. They are clearly cooked six ways to Sunday, or we wouldn't be withdrawing more drugs in one decade than all previous history combined.

[HuckleB]

83. And you offer more red herring nonsense.

On top of personal attacks. (Heck, you didn't even read my post.)

:rofl:

[apocalypsehow]

92. Once boiled, hair-clippings from martyrs & saints cures gallstones. I'll send you a batch for $29.99

Plus shipping & handling, of course....

( :eyes: )

[HuckleB]

100. Throw in some homeopathic teething gel, and I'm all over it!

[Confusious]

263. If we listened to you

And went with "alternative" medicinces, I'm sure your body count would rack up REALLY quick, as all the diseases that are in check right now would come raging back.

Hell, you might even be alive to see it. That would be sweet, sweet justice.

[Celebration]

132. Your red herring

Is a red herring.

[HuckleB]

138. Keep posting a whole lot of nothing.

That seems to be your forte.

[Better Today]

94. Well played. Granted if homeopathy doesn't work, one may have

serious or fatal results from whatever one was attempting to be cured of, but rarely (not never) do the actual naturals cause an issue or a fatality.

If one is using naturals, one needs to recognize that they don't always work for everything, and there is likely a time to see a dr if they don't work. For me, that isn't a choice I'll make, but I have a lifetime of issues with the medical society and will not return for god nor money. I'll die first, quite literally.

[HuckleB]

95. It's actually the usual red herring tossed out by the anti-science crowd at DU.

But don't let that stop you from being impressed by distractions.

On edit, oh yeah, you tried to use the same gambit.

:rofl:

[Better Today]

99. I'm so flattered that you are enamored enough to follow my every post,

Thank you. No matter how hard you try though you cannot discredit me. I am not anti-science, I use science all the time in determining what I shall utilize for each issue. Both Biology and Chemistry. I understand that folks, perhaps as yourself, with little or no scientific training or education have to rely on others to solve their every ow-y.

[HuckleB]

101. You've discredited yourself.

No worries there.

[Better Today]

103. Again, entirely a subjective perspective that doesn't change the facts.

Medical society made me chronically ill and depressed for 30 years, I've now been healthy and happy for the twenty I've tended myself. Perhaps because of my choice to never return, I will die younger than I would've, but I'll guaran-god-damn-tee you, my quality of life is dramatically improved, and that matters more to me.

You can wish and have blind faith in whatever you desire. I have no blind faith, only a determination to avoid drs. and medical society at all costs due to a lifetime of BS from them (I was born dead, had one of the first pediatric open heart surgeries in the US in the very early 1960's, and was essentially under regular and constant medical care most of my first 30 years). Natural will not cure everything, nor do I believe it will, nor do I recommend to anyone to avoid drs or medical advice AS THEY SEE FIT.

Bye now, have a lovely day!

[HuckleB]

112. You don't care about facts.

You've made that clear.

[Confusious]

262. Nothing is ALL alternative medicine does

Of course, you leave out all the things it has done right,

Like wipe out smallpox, polio, leprosy

Vaccines for hundreds of other diseases which killed children,

Cures for different things which used to be killers.

"Alternative" medicine does nothing at best, kills at worse.

Modern medicine cures at best, kills at worst. And the worst is because someone is trying to cure the problem, not stealing a buck.

[bemildred]

62. Hey, placebos can work great.

Nothing plus a little mumbo jumbo can do a world of good. MDs use them all the time. There is a lot of research going into the placebo effect, and that's a good thing.

[HuckleB]

69. MDs address the ethics of placebos, while homeopaths and others ignore such matters.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1188891/pdf/jpn00074-0011.pdf

[Celebration]

131. I had a homeopathic MD tell me

That placebos are the best medicine in the world, when they work.

[HuckleB]

141. I'm sure you did.

[hollowdweller]

68. I had a friend with breast cancer

She truly believed that by positive thinking, a vegetarian diet and herbs and stuff she could cure herself.

She was poor but doctor pals in the community offered to treat her for free and she refused.

My wife always calls her a casualty of the New Age movement.

I'm all for medicinal herbs, positive thinking and diet mind you, but you don't fool around with life or death stuff IMO.

[HuckleB]

71. That is one heart-wrenching story.

[Hekate]

90. So did I. She found out she had breast cancer and elected to "treat" it with alternative therapies

I think she died about a year later, in her 40s. This was close to 20 years ago...

My mom was 75 when she got breast cancer, went the "Western medicine" route, which was horribly unpleasant, but she survived another 7 years to die of something else entirely.

We need to do several things in this country regarding cancer treatments. Aside from universal health care so tests and treatment don't bankrupt families, the biggest thing we need to do, imo, is have much much much better comfort measures to deal with the awful side effects of chemotherapy. Often people with a diagnosis of cancer fear the treatment as much or more than the disease, which I suspect was one motive for my late friend's decision.

Herbal remedies, a positive outlook, healthy diet, personal rituals like meditation and prayer, emotional support -- all these have a role in "healing." But if a patient shows up with a broken leg or a cancerous lump, those things won't do the job all by themselves.

Hekate

[MineralMan]

127. Very sad story...

[pitohui]

70. i don't know huckle, it's truly a tragedy

i honestly think she believed she was doing the right thing and considering the number of "diet nuts" in america i'm not sure how many fingers we can point

we laugh at her because it's aids/hiv but then we turn around and pretend that diet is the key to curing/preventing cancer and heart disease when it's advanced tech (surgery and medicines) that do 99% of the job of curing these ills

there is something in human nature that makes us want to believe in fairy tales and we in america can see it in the south african but we refuse to see it in ourselves

how many have died because instead of providing universal health care to all who have heart disease we tell the un-insured to eat more brown rice?

[HuckleB]

73. I have no general disagreement with your post.

Making health care available is key.

[apocalypsehow]

76. Kick, Rec. n/t.

[mzmolly]

85. Most medicine can do harm.

Buyer beware always applies. That said any treatment for a disease or disorder, should undergo some form of formal scrutiny.

[HuckleB]

87. Indeed.

Me, I want consistent, equal regulation across health care. But I generally agree with your post.

:hi:

[mzmolly]

96. I agree. Consistent, equal regulation.

:hi:

[bemildred]

91. That's a good point too.

Dosage is everything, almost any medicine is bad for you if you take too much, or ineffective if you don't get enough. Almost any treatment has some risks associated with it.

[woo me with science]

106. http://whatstheharm.net/

Thanks for this post. It cannot be said often enough.

http://whatstheharm.net/

[HuckleB]

113. Great link!

Thanks.

[Toucano]

115. Foul!

Shame on the mod who moved this out of GD.

It is General Discussion, no?

Does someone not like the conversation?

[HuckleB]

119. The anti-science crowd goes to the alert button so they can kill discussion.

We see the anti-science folks going to court over language to try and quiet scientists, and at DU this is the tactic they use.

It's sick and wrong, but they'll do whatever they can to protect the woo.

[omega minimo]

159. Aside from the fact the OP is blatant flamebait

that last post is the most insane mess of false accusations and hateful claims I've ever seen on the topic here. And I've seen the most vicious crap the sciencyiests can dish out.

How do you expect to have any credibility? This is provocation, nothing more or less. Deliberate disinformation.

[HuckleB]

161. Prove it.

You just don't like the truth, so you attack it in your juvenile manner.

[omega minimo]

172. You've shown it. You're done

:thumbsdown:

[HuckleB]

178. You should have stopped before you tried to push your BS.

Thanks for the laughs, however.

:rofl:

[omega minimo]

180. You should stop being so obvious about wasting others' time.

[HuckleB]

183. More irony.

Try starting your own thread, so you can waste your own time.

:rofl:

[bridgit]

121. Pft, well duh, ya'think? Homeopathy to treat an aggressive malignant brain tumor?

HIV/AIDS? Bone cancer? Nonesense. Someone is trying to be ridiculous http://www.advance-health.com/garlic.html

[bemildred]

126. A comment about double-blind studies ...

The point of doing double-blind studies is precisely to prevent subjective effects, such as placebo effects, from distorting the results. That is why double-blind studies are the gold standard for scientific testing, and rightly so.

Nevertheless, subjective effects can have powerful healing results. Prior to the modern scientific medicine era, a great deal of medicine was based on placebo healing, and it really did work enough to retain the confidence of the healed. When one has no better tools at hand, one would be remiss not to resort to the placebo in hopes it might do some good.

But this situation presents a real problem when one wants to study psychological healing effects scientifically, how is one to exclude psychological effects while studying them?

[Celebration]

130. exactly

And, suppose there was a psychological type placebo that could get a 90% remission rate on a condition. Would we ignore it because it was no better than a placebo? When no treatment only got a 30% remission rate?

Fortunately there are a few people actually thinking about this issue.

[HuckleB]

133. That is a great subject.

However, I don't think most alternative providers are telling their patients that they're treating them psychologically. Thus, I'm not sure how much importance that has on this issue. The ethics and value of placebo is actually something that the mainstream health community is studying, on the other hand.

[bemildred]

148. I won't deny it's a bit of a hijack.

But then as you say, it is a fascinating subject, and I don't claim to have seen through to the end of it either. The interface between objective and subjective reality has always been a source of disputes. I wanted to see if anyone else had anything to say about it.

I don't want to get into the argument between orthodox and alternative medicine, so I hope you will allow me to leave that subject alone.

[laughingliberal]

151. This was a subject of much discussion in nursing school

In those days many courses discussed what was referred to as the 'mind-body connection.' It was believed there was a connection but not much was known and the discussions and lectures on it tended to be of a philosophical nature. We don't know oodles more today than we knew then except to know there is a connection and we have started, in the field of neuropshych, to identify connections between imbalances in neurotransmitter substances which result in 'mental illness' also causing physical symptoms. Whether this turns out to be the entirety of the 'mind-body' connection or just a piece remains to be seen. But it is a piece we did not have during my days in school.

[HuckleB]

208. A fair piece on the topic.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=572

[bemildred]

227. Fair enough, here is one for you:

http://esciencenews.com/articles/2009/12/22/study.redefines.placebo.effect.part.effective.treatment

[bemildred]

229. And one more:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/Depression/story?id=117057&page=1

[HuckleB]

231. They're both good studies.

I've no doubt about the power of the placebo effect, much less of the mind to change itself physically. If it didn't, we would have to put all therapists out of work.

Where I get stuck is trying to see how the use of placebos might be put into a "standardized practice" of sorts.

[bemildred]

232. Thanks.

You are right, it's inherently subjective. After many years of study, I reached the conclusion that for certain things, that is as good as it gets. Having objective, repeatable demonstrations is a fairly restrictive criteria. I don't want to denigrate that, it is indeed the desired thing, but I don't think that it encompasses all that is worth knowing or understanding either. Things may be useful without being reliable. That is what statistics, done right, is all about.

[HuckleB]

245. I just came across this and thought about this discussion.

Randomised controlled trial of infantile colic
treated with chiropractic spinal manipulation
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1718650/pdf/v084p00138.pdf

"A nurse brought the infant to the chiropractor. The infants who did not get spinal manipulation were just held by the nurse for 10 minutes."

From the conclusion via the abstract (easier to copy and paste!): http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1718650/

"Chiropractic spinal manipulation is no more effective than placebo in the treatment of infantile colic. This study emphasises the need for placebo controlled and blinded studies when investigating alternative methods to treat unpredictable conditions such as infantile colic."

So the placebo goes further than the individual receiving "treatment." Parents expecting a result can perceive a placebo effect as well. Or so it seems.

:hi:

[bemildred]

248. "Oral sucrose has an analgesic effect in newborn infants

and has been shown to have a significant ameliorating effect on infant colic."

See, sugar pills work! They can be real medicine.

Seriously, it would never occur to me to use spinal manipulations for colic. The "held by a nurse for ten minutes" seems more likely to work. If it sounds like magic, it probably is, and there is nothing like a double-blind study to disambiguate that sort of thing.

[Name removed]

150. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

170. So...

What one gets when one puts a story that pushes science-based medicine at DU is plenty of repeated red herrings, lots of excuses, a few anecdotes by people who don't seem to understand the difference between research and anecdotes, and plenty of posters who post responses to an imaginary OP of their own creation. It's quite bizarre. Or it should be. Alas, when these things are pointed out, those posters suddenly attack the OP by claiming that the OP is the one doing these things.

Well, it's sad, but I have to laugh, too.

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

197. Homeopathy: A Warning from Africa

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/09/homeopathy-warning-from-africa.html

[HuckleB]

199. David Mitchell and Dara O'Briain on Homeopathy & Psychics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZemJD-9IIqk

:rofl:

[HuckleB]

203. Voice of Reason: Licensing Naturopaths May Be Hazardous to Your Health

http://www.livescience.com/health/naturopathy_license_041118.html

[HuckleB]

204. Modern shamanism—naturopathy for hypertension

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=453

[HuckleB]

205. The End of Chiropractic

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3022

[HuckleB]

210. Those who live in glass houses… (on chiropractic)

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2385

[HuckleB]

212. Adverse Effects of Chiropractic

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=509

[HuckleB]

213. Acupuncture Does Not Work for Back Pain (study)

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=492

[HuckleB]

214. Acupuncture for IVF Revisited – More Tooth Fairy Science?

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=469

[HuckleB]

216. Puncturing the Acupuncture Myth

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=252#more-252

[HuckleB]

217. Risks Associated With Complementary And Alternative Medicine (CAM): A Brief Overview

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=480

[HuckleB]

219. The autism “biomed” movement: Uncontrolled and unethical experimentation on autistic children

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2815

[bvar22]

220. LOL.

Go ahead an keep taking your pills,
and then take other pills to counteract the side affects,
and then take anti-depressants when the amount of pills your are taking depresses you,
and then take some more pills to counteract the side affects of the anti-depressants.


The US IS the most over prescribed population on the planet!
TRY to get a doctor to take you OFF a running prescription and see what happens.

There IS a healthy gray area somewhere in the middle.

For instance,
Regularly eating local wildflower honey* WILL reduce allergies and Hay Fever (whatever THAT is)....or you can take some FDA approved pills. Suit yourself.

It IS up to you.

*REAL "local Wild Flower Honey" is rare.

[HuckleB]

222. I thnk I have just the group for you!

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=22

And this should interest you, too!
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=296

[HuckleB]

221. That Mitchell and Webb Look: Lifestyle Nutritionists

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SavsJYXWgm8

[HuckleB]

223. The GAO Report on Supplement Regulation

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=404

[HuckleB]

224. ESP for Healthcare Professionals

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=192

[HuckleB]

225. Through the Looking Glass of Acupuncture Research

http://www.theness.com/neurologicablog/?p=419

[HuckleB]

228. Acupuncture Works ... As Placebo

http://www.livescience.com/health/090120-acupuncture-placebo.html

[HuckleB]

240. $2.5 billion spent, no alternative cures found

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/

[HuckleB]

247. Homeopathic malaria advice 'risks lives'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm

[HuckleB]

256. Lies, Damned Lies, and CAM Statistics

http://medstudt.blogspot.com/2009/01/my-latest-submission-to-campus.html

"Do 4 in 10 of us use CAM?
Sure, if you count vegetarians and Pilates

Flipping through an old magazine in a waiting room, I read assertion that complimentary and alternative medicine (CAM) should be studied because over 30% of Americans use it. In the Wall Street Journal on 12/26/08, journalist Steve Salerno cited a recent report of 38% CAM usage, although he used the figure in a compelling argument against spending public dollars on non-scientific modalities. Salerno received a response in the 1/09/09 WSJ by a quartet of CAM's finest that used bizarre logic: any lifestyle change (e.g., diet, exercise, stress management) that prevents disease is CAM, lifestyle change is an inexpensive way to prevent chronic disease, therefore we need "serious government funding" of all CAM (including chi manipulation). Physician bloggers from Science Based Medicine call this tactic "the CAM bait-and-switch," and it involves the same conflation responsible for the claim that 4 in 10 Americans use CAM.

Look at the data behind the "4 in 10" claim that Salerno cites. In a 2007 survey (raw data here) of 30,000 households, the most frequently reported use of CAM in the past year was of "nonvitamin, nonmineral, natural products" (17.7% of respondents), and the most common such product was "fish oil or omega 3 or DHA." The next highest rate was for "deep breathing exercises" (12.9%), and number three was meditation (9.6%). In fourth place was "chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation" (8.6%), the vast majority for back, neck, or joint pain. The next five most common responses were similarly unexciting: massage (8.3%, also mostly for back pain), yoga (6.1%), diets (3.6%, primarily vegetarian, Atkins, and South Beach), "progressive relaxation" (2.9%), and "guided imagery" (2.2%). Dude, where's my chi?

Homeopathy made the top ten with 1.8% of respondents. Acupuncture tied with Pilates at 1.4%. Ayurveda, Qi Gong, and Reiki altogether made up less than 1%.

..."

----------------------------


Honesty does not seem to be something CAM purveyors care about.

Why is that? And why aren't more of us concerned?

[HuckleB]

257. Acupuncture and back pain: some interesting background references

http://www.badscience.net/2007/09/acupuncture-and-back-pain-some-interesting-background-references/

[Name removed]

264. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.