Why Do We Spend $34 Billion In (sic) Alternative Medicine?

[Orrex]

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/WellnessNews/story?id=8215703&page=1

The headline itself is a worthy question, since the vast majority of these treatments are wholly unsupported by empirical evidence.

But the more locally relevant question IMO is why "Big Pharma" is attacked for being a ruthless, for-profit industry, while the ruthless, $34 billion for-profit "alternative medicine" industry is given a pass.

:shrug:

[newfie11]

1. Do any insurances pay for alternative medicine. Just wondering n/t

[Orrex]

2. Some insurance companies do pay for some forms of "alternative" or "complementary" medicine

[paulsby]

7. my insurance pays for it.

60 massages a year and 30 chiro appointments. i use both. my chiro has worked with numerous competitiveathletes (myself included) including numerous olympians.

athletes don't care if something is "alternative". they care if it works. chiro does. so does massage.

[Orrex]

10. Chiropractic doesn't work by manipulation subluxations, though

Any chiropractor who claims that it does is a charlatan and a fraud.


And whether or not athletes endorse a treatment isn't a valid metric, either; plenty of athletes endorse anabolic steroids, but that doesn't make anabolic steroids valid sports medicine.

[paulsby]

16. thanks for proving my point

athletes support anabolic steroids (i know many athletes who used them "back in the day") because they work.

athletes and sports scientists knew this LONG before conventional medicine admitted they work. i am talking DECADES.

search the history of the invention of dianabol vs. when the AMA *finally* admitted they work.

heck, the official position of the AMA until (iirc it was around 1987) was that anabolic steroids only worked by placebo effect.

lol.

this is after DECADES of successful use, especially by the east germans and the soviets.

the same can be said about essential fatty acids. for DECADES, the AMA and conventional medicine pimped the "food pyramid" which is complete crap, demonized ALL fat ("use sparingly") etc.

udo erasmus was an outcast when he started preaching "good fats".

it was "alternative"

my performance improved significantly once i went to chiro. i go to my team's chiro. he has a cadre of olympic athletes who can attest to performance increases, injury reduction, improved recovery, etc. that we get from chiro... and massage.

i'm in my 40's. i won't be going ot the olympics, but i'm nationally ranked, and close to a world record for my masters division. i'm not saying that because i'm braggin. im saying that because my chiro, massage therapist and coach are all integral to my performance.

when you are pushing to body to its limits (and sometimes beyond, as my injuries can attest. ) alternative modalities like chiro, massage, and much more advanced nutrition than the AMA speaks of - WORK.

look, i'll agree with you that MOST alternative medicine is ineffective at best, dangerous at worse.

of course, that's true for almost ANYTHING.

it's the 90/5/5 rule

for example 90% of employees are basically competent, rarely willing to lead or innovate and will basically follow the herd and the business culture. iow, they are averse to the risks of corrupt activities and will rarely exceed

5% are the ones that innovate, work exceptionally hard. they're the golden children

and 5% or so are dangerous, seriously incompetent, corrupt, etc.

in alternative medicine, 90% is inert crap. 5% is wonderfully effective. 5% is dangerous.

you can apply this to music

90% is mediocre . etc. etc.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

3. Because regular medicine doesn't work, a lot of times.

That's why.

Acupuncture and chiropractic have some benefit.

The rest of it is probably woo woo.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

4. HEALTH CARE IS INFESTED BY CON-MEN AND CHARLATANS

ALL FOR THE ALLMIGHTY DOLLAR

[Orrex]

11. You're correct, and some of those con-men and charlatans work in conventional medicine

The rest work in the hugely profitable and almost wholly unregulated alternative medicine industry.

[kimmerspixelated]

5. OMG I don't know where to begin!

Death by Modern Medicine, lawsuits, hospital errors(fatal),the list goes on...

Not supported by "empirical evidence" is an intersting way to phrase it.

If the EMPIRE doesn't study and produce their own twisted results, then any other study has to be false, right?

Have you ever tried anything that wasn't made by Big Pharma to treat a malady?

If not, you really can't participate in whether or not alternative treatments, work or not.

Just like all blondes aren't dumb, all alternative med makers aren't ruthless, but Big Pharma wins the big prize for lack of scruples, anyday!!

[Orrex]

9. You do know what "empirical" means, don't you?

And you do know that it doesn't descend from "empire," right?


And whether or not "I" can participate in alternative treatments is irrelevant; the fact remains that people spend far too much on treatments not proven to have any efficacy and often proven to have none.

[Why Syzygy]

6. Why do we spend $2.4 TRILLION ($7,900 per person)

for 'modernized' medicine?

(...)In 2008, total national health expenditures were expected to rise 6.9 percent -- two times the rate of inflation.1 Total spending was $2.4 TRILLION in 2007, or $7900 per person1. Total health care spending represented 17 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

U.S. health care spending is expected to increase at similar levels for the next decade reaching $4.3 TRILLION in 2017, or 20 percent of GDP.1

In 2008, employer health insurance premiums increased by 5.0 percent – two times the rate of inflation. The annual premium for an employer health plan covering a family of four averaged nearly $12,700. The annual premium for single coverage averaged over $4,700.2

Experts agree that our health care system is riddled with inefficiencies, excessive administrative expenses, inflated prices, poor management, and inappropriate care, waste and fraud. These problems significantly increase the cost of medical care and health insurance for employers and workers and affect the security of families.

National Health Care Spending

In 2008, health care spending in the United States reached $2.4 trillion, and was projected to reach $3.1 trillion in 2012.1 Health care spending is projected to reach $4.3 trillion by 2016.1

Health care spending is 4.3 times the amount spent on national defense.3

In 2008, the United States will spend 17 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP) on health care. It is projected that the percentage will reach 20 percent by 2017.1

Although nearly 46 million Americans are uninsured, the United States spends more on health care than other industrialized nations, and those countries provide health insurance to all their citizens.3

Health care spending accounted for 10.9 percent of the GDP in Switzerland, 10.7 percent in Germany, 9.7 percent in Canada and 9.5 percent in France, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.4(...)

http://www.nchc.org/facts/cost.shtml

[Orrex]

8. A valid question, but not relevant here

The fact that we as a nation spend far too much on administrative medical costs (for example) has no bearing on the fact that too many people spend too much money on unproven and unregulated alternative treatments.

[Why Syzygy]

12. Of course it's relevant.

Six times as much is spent on non-alt. You're beefing about the MONEY, right?

It is your OPINION that alt treatments don't work. Hardly a universal sentiment.

Not all 'modernized' medicine has proven to work either.
It's mainstream, sanctioned by TPTB, and you have faith in whatever they say is okay.

[Orrex]

13. It is not simply "my opinion" that alt treatments don't work

Show me the independent, objective studies that support alternative treatments. I've made this request dozens of times in this forum, and the best I've gotten in reply are a handful of one-shot studies with shaky methodology and unconvincing results.

If an alternative treatment is proven to work, then it's adopted into actual medicine. Nothing mysterious about it: all you need to do is prove that it works.

Give me a list of "alternative treatments" that have been proven to work but which haven't been accepted by actual medicine. Actual, specific examples, rather than nebulous (and unverifiable) claims such as "live longer by maintaining a balanced lifestyle."

Give me a list of "modernized medicines" that haven't been proven to work, and for every example that you cite I will cite two "alternative" treatments that also don't work. However, I caution you against naming particular, individual drugs, because if you do so, then you'll be opening alternative variations on a theme to the same criticism (eg Pranic healing and therapeutic touch thereby qualify as two separate bogus treatments rather than a single bogus treatment based on the same unsubstantiated notion.)


Claiming that I "have faith" in the assertions of educated researchers is the same desperate argument made by theists who insist that atheism is an equivalent form of belief. To claim that my acceptance of evidence is based in faith is to misunderstand acceptance, evidence, and faith.

[Why Syzygy]

15. It is your interpretation/perception.

What is your theory why people spend money on alternative therapies?

They just haven't seen the studies you recommend and BELIEVE
(even when there has been discovered fraud in testing, marketing and prescribing)?

[Orrex]

17. You don't understand the difference between "believe" and "accept."

As a matter of fact, I believe very little. I accept a great many claims, however, because I have seen evidence sufficient to justify acceptance of those claims.

Allow me to point out that you have once again required an answer from me while refusing to answer the question I put to you. Instead of producing a list of "unproven" medical treatments or a list of "proven" alt-med remedies, you've deflected the discussion by asking why I think people utilize alternative medicine. I've seen this again and again, from you and from other proponents of alt-med, and I confess that I find it wearying. At the very least, it's an unfair playing field, since it hold me me to a standard to which alt-med proponents seem not to hold themselves.

In any case, I have several ideas as to why people spend money on alternative therapies, all of which are well-studied and all of which I have witnessed first-hand:

1. Price: Although alternative medicine is, in the aggregate, a greedy $34 billion dollar industry, certain individual treatments can be quite inexpensive. Therefore people are more willing to try these cheap would-be remedies because they require only a small investment.

2. The fallacious belief that "natural is better:" People have been so effectively brainwashed to believe that Mother Nature is out to help us and Big Pharma is out to rob and poison us that they swallow "naturalistic" claims uncritically. Because of this, people are more willing to try this or that unproven herb than a proven drug patented by Merck. This is especially true when the herb costs $0.50 per dose while the drug costs $250.

3. Misplaced trust: Surely the herbalist or naturopath on the corner wouldn't lie to you, would he? He's just a nice guy trying to help people, rather than an evil pharmaceutical company out to gouge the consumer for every last penny. So of course you can trust him when he tells you that a certain powder can help your arthritis, even if there's no factual evidence whatsoever to support his claim.

4. A belief in traditional wisdom: "This treatment has been around for millennia, so it must work." This is a self-evident fallacy, but people still succumb to it. A millennia-old treatment might work or it might not, but the fact that it's old has nothing to do with it. This is compounded by the belief that the wisdom of other cultures is superior to our own; thus "traditional Chinese" remedies must be doubly effective, since they're both ancient and "exotic."

5. A belief in malevolent conspiracy: Some people justify their use of alt-med remedies on the grounds that Big Pharma has been suppressing "natural" cures, or because Big Pharma has published fraudulent research data. Big Pharma has indeed done this, and the practice is reprehensible, but in itself that doesn't justify a belief in alt-med. Big Pharma is the favorite target of this belief, and anyone who argues against alternative medicine can expect to be accused of being a shill many times over.

6. Mistrust and/or poor understanding of science: Mother Earth is a magnet, and they use magnets in MRIs, so magnets must have curative powers, right? You'll likely object that this is a caricature, but it's not; a misunderstanding of science underlies the huge majority of pseudoscientific alt-med remedies. Further, the failure to understand something can make one distrustful of it.

7. Desperation: When all else has failed to cure your sciatica, why not spend $20 for a copper ankle bracelet? After all, they haven't proven that it doesn't work, so that means that it might work, right?

8. Erroneous reliance on personal testimony: Individual testimonials are the weakest form of evidence, yet they can pack the biggest emotional punch, so people tend to accept them even in the absence of supporting data. Testimonials are made further unreliable by the possibility of selective sampling, in which negative testimonials are ignored while positive testimonials are touted loudly.

9. What's the harm? This is a favorite go-to argument for fans of alt-med remedies. "What's the harm in trying this or that remedy?" The harm, of course, is that the remedy can indeed be unsafe, but because it's a "supplement" it's somehow free from FDA regulation, so who knows what you're going to wind up with? Additionally, the "harm" is that a person might forgo actual medical treatment in favor of a dubious alt-med curative, during which time the underlying condition might worsen significantly.

10. Belief in magical thinking: This is the big one because, like #6, it underlies a great deal of alt-med rationale. Any system arguing that "like cures like" or which refers to "life force" is an example of magical thinking. Any system that refers to some kind of metaphysical "balance" is likewise magical thinking.


These are some of the reasons why I think that people spend their money on alt-med cures. Any one of these is sufficient, psychologically, to influence a person's decision, and in my experience most people who believe in alt-med subscribe to at least four or five of the ten listed above. None of these imply diminished mental faculties or a lack of intelligence, by the way.


Why do you think that people spend their money on alternative medicine? Why do you think that people "believe" in science?

[Why Syzygy]

20. LOL

"Refused to answer" a rhetorical question? I knew you had it all figured out. I don't think you're really interested in personal testimonies. Why bother.

:: When you choose to "accept" information that has been proven to be fraudulent, you move into the realm of belief. Fraud has been PROVEN in many instances, and obviously swept under the rug in numerous others. Even the atheists have never PROVEN that belief is God is Fraudulent!

As for WHY pharmco gets more negative attention, perhaps it is related to scope, as was my original answer when comparing $34 billion to $2.4 TRILLION. A bit more obvious and wide spread.

For references regarding energy therapies, start with this book:
http://books.google.com/books?id=d55ebAAvZRYC&dq=lynn+mctaggart&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=M250SrywNMmltgepj9mWCQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=15#v=onepage&q=&f=false

[Orrex]

23. I'm familiar with energy therapies, thanks

I notice, first of all, that you addressed none of my 10 responses. That tells me that you asked the question simply as a diversion and distraction, since you clearly weren't interested in the answer.

Beyond that, who here accepts information that has been proven to be fraudulent? Certainly not me, so I wonder why you mention it now.

And it wasn't a rhetorical question, either; I asked you for a list and told you that I'd give back two citations for every one of yours. I'm still awaiting your response.

As for WHY pharmco gets more negative attention, perhaps it is related to scope, as was my original answer when comparing $34 billion to $2.4 TRILLION. A bit more obvious and wide spread.

That's a gross misrepresentation, because pharmco does not account for the entire $2.4 trillion spent domestically on health care.

Regardless, let me propose another comparison, and this one likewise isn't rhetorical: how much tangible, verifiable benefit has resulted from the expenditure of $34 billion on alt-med remedies? That includes money spent on homeopathy, on magnetic insoles, and kinoki footpads. Demonstrate the return on that investment, and you'll make the number seem more reasonable.

[Why Syzygy]

26. Homeopathy

restored my health and I have witnessed it do so for many other people. But I know those examples are not good enough for you.

What comprises your familiarity with energy therapy? Have you looked at all the research cited in the book I posted? There's some of the research you are so desperately demanding. If you won't consider it, why should anyone offer more?

I asked the question to show that you already had your answer formulated and are not sincere in being pursuaded of the value in alternative treatments. Therefore, rhetorical. Some of your responses are valid. I'm not interested in a point by point debate, and never indicated I was.

Do some digging in this forum for plenty of examples of fraudulent cases in mainstream treatments.

I might look up specific numbers for pharmaceuticals later. Or you can. However, they cannot be separated from mainstream treatments as they comprise the MAJOR portion of it. What does any standard doctor actually DO other than bandage up wounds and prescribe? Current day psychiatrists are nothing more than a prescription pad.

[Orrex]

36. McTaggart's claims are not new or distinctive

When a claim is put forth that is substantially identical to a claim that has already been debunked (many times over, in fact) it is not necessary to debunk the new claim. In fact, it is up to the new claimant to support her claims.

Qi or Chi or prana or élan vital has never even been shown to exist. Not ever. Not at all. Therefore any claims about manipulation of this hypothetical energy must necessarily establish its existence before we can even assess the claimed manipulation.

Additionally, you made the claim about fraudulent medical treatments; it is therefore up to you to find your own supporting evidence. You can't simply declare it as true and then task me with seeking out examples for you. For the record, I don't dispute that fraudulent practices have occurred, but it must be noted that these practices are universally condemned by modern medicine when they are discovered. Your claim seems to be that modern medicine embraces these frauds, which simply isn't thecase.

I might look up specific numbers for pharmaceuticals later. Or you can. However, they cannot be separated from mainstream treatments as they comprise the MAJOR portion of it.

Really? If that's your claim then, again, you must support it. I would think that $2,000 ER visits and $100,000 open heart surgeries would make up a good chunk of it, for example.

[Why Syzygy]

38. Most of your comments are wishful thinking.

McTaggart's claims are backed by research. I have no intention of supplying you with more evidence.
You simply deny the existence when it is presented. Look past Newtonian physics, debunked 85 - 125 years ago. The "hypothetical energy" has never been proven to exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

There is nothing I MUST do. Such an attitude proves once again that your only interest is to be bottle fed evidence which you then deny, with NO SUPPORTING PROOF!

What is different about McTaggart is all the research she includes in her reporting. She is also conducting her own scientifically sound studies.

[Orrex]

44. What do you mean "supplying you with more evidence?" You haven't supplied any so far!

Look past Newtonian physics, debunked 85 - 125 years ago. The "hypothetical energy" has never been proven to exist?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark

You have no idea what you're talking about. I certainly don't cling to a belief in Newtonian physics as an explanation of reality on the ultra-microscopic scale, so your petty accusation is baseless and foolish.

Are you asserting that qi is quark energy in some way? Interesting! What the hell do you mean by it? What is your evidence? And how do you propose that a magical waving-of-hands might somehow influence these qi-quarks?

There is nothing I MUST do. Such an attitude proves once again that your only interest is to be bottle fed evidence which you then deny, with NO SUPPORTING PROOF!

Au contraire. If you wish to have any credibility in presenting your argument (a possibility which, I admit, becomes more remote with each of your posts), then there are indeed things that you MUST do. Otherwise, you're just taking random, poorly-targeted pot shots.
You're confusing a reference to rhetorical structure with a personal demand that you undertake some particular behavior.


Incidentally, McTaggart proselytizing in a book marketed to the faithful hardly grants any authority to her claims or findings. Has her work been published in peer-reviewed journals? Or would that simply mean she'd prostrated herself before the Scientistic Hegemony?

[BuddhaGirl]

21. so much energy expended on this topic

you are not going to convince any alt-med users not to use it. :-)

Regarding personal evidence, I have taken different supplements based on other peoples' experiences with it. If I am interested in a particular supplement and I hear positive feedback on it from say, 10-15 people, then yes, I will try it.

Your orientation on this subject is not my orientation, or other's. Frankly, why do you care?

[Orrex]

24. Well, why do *you* care?

I find the millennia-long history of fraud and hucksterism (currently known as alternative medicine) to be intellectually and morally reprehensible, and so I am apt to oppose it when I can. And when I come across an exorbitant hard dollar figure totaling tens of billions of dollars, I am even more strongly inclined to object.

[BuddhaGirl]

28. well, happy opposing then

you are broad brushing all alt-med. Us users do not buy into fraud or hucksterism either, but use what works for us.

But you are entitled to your beliefs about alt-med, of course :-)

[truedelphi]

32. Hey Why Syzygy

:hi:

You might checkout my response (# 30) to a personal testimonial.

And upon reflection, I am sure that if acidophilus was somthing from which the drug companies could make several hundred bucks a bottle, then its therapeutic uses would be taught in medical school.

[BuddhaGirl]

14. I hate to waste money

alt medicine works for me, so it's money well spent. Can't live without my arnica, coQ10, NAC, milk thistle, flax oil, etc. etc. etc.

Only wish it was all covered by insurance! I'm sure one day it will :D

[truedelphi]

30. In 1998 I was diagnosed with diverticulitis

My situation was such that my doctor declared that I had the worst case he had ever seen.

I was too anemic to have surgery right away. I was sent home for bed rest.

During that period of time, my husband bought a book called "Food for Life" as I needed to know how to combat my anemia.

Inside the book was a four or five page chapter on how the simple introduction of acidophilus could cure diverticulitis. What did I have to lose? I had M. buy a bottle of Jarrow's probiotics, for $ 15, and I took double the dose. (After checking with a friend who is also a nutritionist - and she thought that doubling the dose would be necessary to give me relief.)

I was amazed that within four days I felt better. By day five, I could get out of bed, and resume light housekeeping, work on the computer and even run an errand or two. Within two weeks, I felt very good. And at the six week mark I felt Great!

This is probably a very good example of what "alternative medicine" is all about.

Because of this nutritional supplement, I avoided a costly operation. Later, I found out that often people who have the operation to scrape out the diverticuli end up with colostomy bags for the rest of their lives!

This is only one example of the great results brought about by some nutritional or alternative medical procedure that I have experienced personally.

Oh, and my doctor was extremely dis-interest4ed in my complete return to health.

[Why Syzygy]

39. Great story.

I so hope your MIND didn't play a part in your recovery.

:sarcasm:

[Orrex]

46. I'm delighted to hear that you recovered.

What does "worst case he'd ever seen" mean, exactly? How were you diagnosed? I'm assuming that you didn't suffer a ruptured colon or raging peritonitis as a result. If so, then I can envision cases which--I think you'll agree--are worse.

That's not intended to make light of your suffering, because I've known people who've endured diverticulitis, and it was horrible for them. My grandmother, in fact, lost several feet of her large intestine as a result. However, upon recovery she didn't require a colostomy bag. I wasn't aware of the "scraping" treatment you mentioned, but that sounds pretty nightmarish, too.

I would be interested to learn what you ate during your four days of bed rest, other than acidophilus. Did you undertake any other forms of treatment, such as antibiotics? For that matter, infection isn't the only cause of diverticulitis, so antibiotics might not even have been called for.

Your story is an example of why personal testimonials are ultimately problematic even if they carry a strong emotional resonance. Without further detail--some of which you might not have access to--it's difficult to assess acidophilus as a treatment.


Again, I'm delighted that you recovered, but a conclusion is impossible without additional information.

[Crunchy Frog]

58. The point is that she did something cheap, harmless,

and she felt better afterwards. Therefore what she did was valid for her, whether or not it can be scientifically validated.

Individual people who are feeling bad are always going to try different things to try and feel better, and even spend a few dollars doing it. Do you really begrudge her taking a few acidophilus pills? Did she harm you in any way by doing it? I don't understand what your issue is.

[Orrex]

60. That's not the point at all

And the fact that you think it is the point merely demonstrates that you don't understand the issue.

She might now endorse acidophilus as a remedy for diverticulitis when her sample size consists of one episode for one person.

Until we have more information, which I requested, we have no way to assess her story. We can only take it on faith or not.


When dealing with matters of medical reality, I require something a little more concrete than faith in a single anecdote.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. So somebody else might try it.

Maybe they'll feel better too. Or maybe they won't. Either way, they'll be out $15.00. You require more proof before trying something, and that's fine, but that doesn't mean everybody does. If it's cheap, harmless, and might help, then I don't see what the problem is.

[Orrex]

67. Someone else might try it *instead of* trying actual medical treatment

In which case they might very possibly die a horrible death by peritonitis, for example.

[Crunchy Frog]

80. That doesn't seem very likely.

It sounds like the pain is excruciating enough that only hardcore cult members who completely reject medicine would avoid seeing a doctor over it. If they don't though, I guess it's just another form of natural selection.

[Orrex]

81. Ask Coretta Scott King how unlikely it is. Oh, wait! You can't!

Because she died while seeking alt med treatment in Mexico. And there are countess examples of people forgoing medical treatment due to some belief or another. The recent case of the parents who fled with their child rather than allowing him to undergo chemo is another example. It's not nearly as uncommon as you'd like it to be.

You acknowledge that people seek actual medical treatment when a condition becomes so severe that they reject alt med. That's good, because it suggests that you're not entirely out of touch with reality.

At issue, then, is where we decide that the threshold might be. For some people, the threshold exists at the limits of verifiable medicine. For other people--your ilk, for instance--the threshold is "whatever I can take that makes me feel better, even if it doesn't actually have any medicinal value."

[Crunchy Frog]

83. Coretta Scott King had an advanced case of ovarian cancer

that was not considered treatable by conventional medicine.

Can you point me to someone who died of diverticulitis because they took acidophilis rather than seeking conventional medical treatment?

[Orrex]

84. Can you point me to one case of diverticulitis that was verifiably cured by acidiophilus?

That's the issue: that people forgo actual medical treatment in favor of alleged remedies that have not been verifiably demonstrated to work.

And, anyway, why should it have to be a fatal case? I would think that any case that was worsened because the patient delayed actual treatment due to misplaced faith in alt med remedies would be sufficient.

But I'll tell you this: people who recover from an illness tend to give disproportionate credit to the alt med treatment they tried, instead of rightly crediting the conventional medical care they received. It's very much the same as thanking God for saving a patient while totally disregarding the skill of the doctor.

[Crunchy Frog]

85. Can you point me to a case of diverticulitis that was verifiably harmed by acidophilus?

My only claim was that there was no harm in it. You were the one making the claim that people would be dropping dead from peritonitis because taking acidophilus would somehow deter them from getting treated by conventional doctors.

I think I'm finished with this discussion. There is no scientifically verified proof that this conversation is going to improve my health.

Knock yourself out over getting righteously indignant over people taking yoga classes and acidophilus, and by all means try to save these poor benighted people from themselves. I've said what I want to say. I'll even let you get the last word.

[truedelphi]

66. I see your mentality as being

Superstitious. Some people in our society have a bad case of "expertise-ism" for if something is not endorsed by the Main Stream Science labs, then for them, it is not valid.

People suffering from orphan diseases often do not have the luxury of dealing with "science laboratrory proven only" remedies. See my other post for fuller explanation.

People all over the world have helped themselves to things that are not science laboratory proven, yet remain common knowledge remedies.

Where did we get the first two hundred years of our compendium of various herbal remedies if not from collecting the Old Wives tales and local lore. Many, many of the early settlers used Native American remedies, some of which worked and became part of our modern day arsenal, and some which didn't work very well and were discarded. (Aspirin is the modern day equivalent of the native lore supported "Willow Bark.")

The real geniuses in the laboratories are always open to what the Native peoples use. And to what the Old Wives' tales say.

BTW, being an elder care worker, I did use my experience to offer what I learned to patients who were in the beginning stages of what might have been diverticulitis. In the four years following my experience, I told seven clients about this. All had tummy troubles after taking antibiotics, all talked it over with their familes, and one discussed it with their doctor. Of seven clients, five had relief. One didn't but whatever was troubling her cleared up on its own. The other saw no relief as we hoped and expected in the first week, and saw her doctor, and it turned out she had stomach cancer.

[Orrex]

69. Your mischaracterization of me is a straw man

In your whole life you will meet no one less superstitious than I am.
I have faith in just about nothing and I don't credit any "belief" that isn't backed up by verifiable evidence. I don't accept something because "the Main Stream Science labs" endorse it; I accept it because it can be verified to function as advertised.

Whether or not people have the luxury of dealing with "science laboratory proven only" remedies is irrelevant, because that lack of luxury doesn't mean that alt med works. Additionally, in an early reply I cited ten reasons why IMO people turn to alt med, and price was the first on the list.

Incidentally, asprin has been recognized for over 150 years, so it's not a good example of modern medicine's embrace of wives' tales.

The real geniuses in the laboratories are always open to what the Naive(sic) peoples use. And to what the Old Wives' tales say.

This may be the fundamental misconception of alternative medicine: the belief that a treatment must be valid because it's supported by traditional wisdom. Well, the treatment may or may not be valid, but traditional acceptance is insufficient to verify that validity.

If you can find a single example in the the past century of modern medicine in which a traditional remedy was accepted outright without testing or analysis, I'd love to hear about it.

[truedelphi]

64. During the first four days, I did not eat very much.

My husband made a soup for me, one of the few things I could tolerate.

But eating was agony. Even sipping water brought about excruciating pain.

This regimen was the same thing I had done for the several weeks prior to the introduction of the acidophilus.

Also, because the doctors seeing me had thought that maybe I had cancer, I had several different types of imaging done. I don't remember the details, i.e. which test showed what, but one of the various imaging systems showed the diverticuli.

[Orrex]

68. Thank you for the clarification. Once again, I'm glad that you recovered so completely!

[Why Syzygy]

72. Clinical Study Highlight

Prophylaxis of pouchitis onset with probiotic therapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.
Gastroenterology 2003 May; 124:1202-9

(...)The probiotic preparation studied was the commercially available VSL#3 product, which is a blend of 8 lactobacilli and bifidobacteria and delivers 300 billion viable bacteria per gram. Three grams of the probiotic preparation (900 billion probiotic bacteria per day) or a placebo were administered to patients immediately after ileostomy closure. Patients were assessed after 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. Two of the 20 patients (10%) treated with VSL#3 had an episode of acute pouchitis compared with 8 of the 20 patients (40%) treated with placebo. This statistically significant improvement demonstrated that the probiotic product, VSL#3, is an effective treatment for the prevention of the onset of acute pouchitis and improves the quality of life in patients with ileal pouch-anal anastomosis.

http://www.usprobiotics.org/ClinicalStudy_November_2003.asp

Clinical Study Highlight
An investigation of recent clinical studies with a summary and comments
by Mary Ellen Sanders, Ph.D.

Featured Study - June 2009
Probiotics Improve Outcomes After Roux-en-Y Gastric Bypass Surgery - J Gastrointest Surg 2009 Apr 18.

Featured Study - April 2009
Probiotic Study Group. A differential effect of 2 probiotics in the prevention of eczema and atopy: a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial - J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2008 Oct;122(4):788-94.

Featured Study - January 2009
The effects of probiotics on feeding tolerance, bowel habits, and gastrointestinal motility in preterm newborns - J Pediatr. 2008 Jun;152(6):801-6.

Featured Study - August 2008
Randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of probiotics for primary prevention: no clinical effects of Lactobacillus GG supplementation- Pediatrics. 2008. 121(4):e850-6.

Featured Study - April 2008
Use of probiotic Lactobacillus preparation to prevent diarrhoea associated with antibiotics: randomised double blind placebo controlled trial - BMJ. 2007 Jul 14;335(7610):80.

Featured Study - March 2007
Augmentation of antimicrobial metronidazole therapy of bacterial vaginosis with oral probiotic Lactobacillus rhamnosus GR-1 and Lactobacillus reuteri RC-14: randomized, double-blind, placebo controlled trial - Microbes and Infection. 8: 1450-1454.

Featured Study - May 2006
Increasing work-place healthiness with the probiotic Lactobacillus reuteri: a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled study - Environ Health. 4:25.

Featured Study - November 2005
Effect of lactobacillus in preventing post-antibiotic vulvovaginal candidiasis: a randomised controlled trial - BMJ. 2004 Sep 4;329(7465):548

Featured Study - June 2005
Lactobacillus and Bifidobacterium in irritable bowel syndrome: symptom responses and relationship to cytokine profiles - Gastroenterology 128(3): 541-51

Featured Study - January 2005
Effect of a probiotic infant formula on infections in child care centers: comparison of two probiotic agents - Pediatrics 115(1):5-9.

Featured Study - October 2004
Randomised clinical trial of synbiotic therapy in elective surgical patients - Gut 53(2):241-5.

Featured Study - February 2004
Ingested probiotics reduce nasal colonization with pathogenic bacteria (Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae, and b-hemolytic streptococci) - Am J. Clin. Nutr. 77:517-520

Featured Study - November 2003
Prophylaxis of pouchitis onset with probiotic therapy: a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial - Gastroenterology 2003 May; 124:1202-9

Featured Study - June 2003
Effect of probiotic Lactobacillus strains in children with atopic dermatitis - J Allergy Clin Immunol 2003 Feb;111(2):389-95

Featured Study - April 2003
Use of fermented foods to combat stunting and failure to thrive - Nutrition 18:393-396

http://www.usprobiotics.org/ClinicalStudy_November_2003.asp

[Orrex]

74. Super! If they work, then they're part of conventional medicine. What's the problem?

[Why Syzygy]

75. They are sold in alternative health stores.

And some groceries as food additives. Not classified as drugs. They would be included in the $34 billion figure.
Your OP mentions nothing of "conventional" medicine. You refer to pharmco.

I'm sure you don't want me to answer this question.
What's the problem?

[Orrex]

77. Vitamins are sold in pharmacies and are likewise not classified as drugs.

But they've been part of conventional medicine for quite a while.

I'm sure you don't want me to answer this question.
What's the problem?

I suppose not, because I already know what your problem is.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

25. We pay for what works

Alt medicine, by and large, doesn't have much more than a placebo effect. (I'll grant you that some alt medicine techniques do work, but I require proof of their efficacy before I'll shell out my hard earned dollars).

Just because the health care system in the U.S. is bloated by greedy insurance companies and cash-crazy corporations doesn't mean that mainstream medicine doesn't work. It DOES work, and very well in many instances.

[Why Syzygy]

27. Prescribed

pharmaceuticals owe much of their perceived benefit to placebo effects. See every drug trial on record for comparisons. Curious that placebo effect in prescribed medications are not opposed with the same ferocity as are those of alternatives.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

29. That's being intellectually dishonest

Drug trials often show a placebo effect, but testing protocols require that the studies show positive results far beyond the placebo effect for them to be considered for use on the public.

Please show me evidence of a pharmaceutical drug (prescription med) on the market today that has been shown to only provide placebo effect and nothing beyond it. Perhaps there is one, but I've never heard of a pharmaceutical drug that was allowed to be sold without a reported showing of positive efficacy in pre-sale drug testing programs.

[Orrex]

35. Name the drug and I will oppose it

As has already been noted, the placebo effect is very useful in studying the effects of drugs during clinical trials, but the placebo effect is not part of the intended functioning of the drug once it's released into the market.

If you can name a drug currently on the market that is knowingly prescribed on the basis of its placebo effect, I will fight to have it removed from the marketplace.

[Why Syzygy]

40. That isn't what many doctors claim.

Many do count on help from the placebo effects to help their patients. Many doctors do not pretend the body has no mind.

[Orrex]

42. Even if true, none of that has anything to do with what I said.

We're not referring to placebo in some nebulous does-it-or-doesn't-it sense; we're talking specifically about drugs whose active function--you claim--is based in part on the placebo effect. Now that it's been twice pointed out that this is simply not the case, you're switching gears and claiming that "many" doctors count on the placebo effect to help their patients.

In response, I urge you to review the thread from a few weeks back when I argued that such a maneuver is fraud and intellectual dishonesty. I remind you that, if I were faced with a suffering relative, I would certainly lie if it would ameliorate her suffering, so I'm not passing judgment on individuals who make the same choice.

However, a doctor is a licensed medical professional. If such a person engages in deliberate fraud while purporting to practice medicine, then that person should lose her license to practice.


As to that bit about doctors not pretending that the body has no mind, I have no idea what you're talking about. It has nothing to do with anything I've posted here, that's for sure.

[HamdenRice]

18. Because much of it is effective. nt

[Orrex]

19. Well, I'll repeat my request.

Let's have a list of alt-med treatments that have been proven effective but which have not been accepted by conventional medicine.

I would stipulate that by "effective," I mean that the curative verifiably works as advertised, e.g., Reiki that actually affects one's Qi and that this in turn leads to improved health.

[HamdenRice]

22. You're asking the wrong question

By asking for examples that "have been proven effective but which have not been accepted by conventional medicine" you are basically asking for what doesn't work. You are asking for what is not consistent with how science works.

Practitioners and patients conclude from anecdotal evidence that alternative medicine treatments are effective. Until they are confirmed to work by mainstream medicine, they remain "alternative." Sometimes, studies are done that show they work. By your criteria, they cease at that point to be alternative, and cannot be used to show that alternative medicine works.

I would point to our changing view of nutrition. Back in the 70s, modern medicine took a fairly mechanistic view of nutrition in the sense that it didn't really matter where you got your amino acids, carbohydrates, vitamins, etc. from because food was all broken down in the stomach and intestines into building blocks and reconstructed in our bodies.

At the time, the idea that we needed to eat whole foods, more vegetables, less processed food, less refined food, etc., was considered alternative.

Now it's mainstream.

[truedelphi]

31. Thanks Hamden. It's a shame that you have to repeat the obvious

But until people wake up to the simple truth in what you mention, it does bear repeating.

[Orrex]

34. Here's the simple truth: if a treatment can be demonstrated to work as advertised, it's accepted.

If it can't, then it's not accepted.

[truedelphi]

41. But in terms of this OP, once a treatment is

"Accepted" it is then categorized as part and parcel of mainstream medicine, and is no longer considered to be alternative medicine.

Through this sleight of hand, those who attack "alternative" medicine are perpetually vindicated, even though from a logical standpoint, they shouldn't be.

[Orrex]

45. That would be true if "acceptance" were arbitrary

You seem to suggest that scientists get together and decide on a whim which theories to accept and which to reject. However, acceptance demands rigorous, uniform standards of methodology that seek to minimize subjective interpretation.

As such, when a treatment is accepted, it means that the treatment has been demonstrated to be effective even under strict experimental protocols reproducible by anyone, rather than simply by people with a vested interest in the process. That's why cold fusion, as claimed by Pons and Fleischmann, was ultimately rejected, because no one else could duplicate their results.

Anyway, once a treatment is demonstrated to be effective, why should it not be accepted into conventional medicine?



I can think of only three reasons why proponents of alt med wouldn't want to subject their theories to such analysis:

1. Because they don't understand the process and/or what it signifies.

2. Because they are afraid that their theories can't withstand direct, objective scrutiny.

3. Because they know that their theories can't withstand direct, objective scrutiny.

[truedelphi]

63. Huh?

You say:

1. Because they don't understand the process and/or what it signifies.

2. Because they are afraid that their theories can't withstand direct, objective scrutiny.

3. Because they know that their theories can't withstand direct, objective scrutiny.


No, I am saying that once something occurs in enough patients that the research community wakes up to the alt procedure, treatment or medicine, that if it survives the above protocols that you list, it becomes mainstream medicine.

So then the remaining "untested" alternative medicines can be scoffed at, as the proven remedies are now on the other side of the ledger.

And often, people want testing done. Steve Cubby, who ran for governor of California, and thus became the target of a marijuana indictment, had been told by alternative practitioners that marijuana would be excellent for arresting the type of cancer he had.

He used it, and the tumors shrank. This could be checked out by any imaging system we have - whether Cubby did that or not, I don't know.

He was the subject of surveillance, and then caught on video smoking his bong. He was not able to concentrate on getting better, but instead had to spend valuable time fighting off his prosecution for smoking the devil weed.

At his trial, privately, someone from the prosecuting side told him that the prosecutors KNEW that marijuana was totally efficacious in terms of shrinking the type of tumors that Cubby had. But they didn't care.

And Big Pharma is not going to admit that good old pot could help - at least not until they have separated out the precise cannabinoid that is responsible. And Big Pharma will ensure that we have laws on the books to prevent people using marijuana for any and all things, until there is some way that they can make a profit on it.

So it ends up being not so much about true science, but about PROFIT.

You can believe me or not, but entire groups of people say what I am saying. They are the families of any patients who need any substance, but cannot obtain it. For instance, Substance A is a remedy of Condition Y, but since Substance A has only been approved for use in the treatment of Condition O & P, the other illness sufferers have to search and search for a doctor who will prescribe it for their condition.

Thus we have "Orphan Illnesses" -- conditions that are not common enough for any drug manufacturer to take the time, energy and money to do the testing on particular substances for that disease.

[Orrex]

70. You're reiterating my point for me

No, I am saying that once something occurs in enough patients that the research community wakes up to the alt procedure, treatment or medicine, that if it survives the above protocols that you list, it becomes mainstream medicine.

So then the remaining "untested" alternative medicines can be scoffed at, as the proven remedies are now on the other side of the ledger.

This has been my argument since long before this thread began. The problem is that for every alt med treatment that can be shown to work as advertised, there are dozens that are nothing but magical wishful thinking or outright fraud. Rigorous scientific analysis is how we separate one from the other, because anecdote and personal testimony aren't sufficient to do it.


The persecution heaped upon users of marijuana is, indeed, idiocy, but it isn't the medical community that's doing the persecuting; it's industry and the government, neither of which represents the medical community. AFAIK, medicine in general has been very interested in the uses of "the devil weed," so I don't see how it's relevant here.

[Orrex]

33. I think the question is central

Here is the argument that was put forth to me:

Not all 'modernized' medicine has proven to work either.

I asked for an example and none was given. I presume that treatments that are explicitly experimental are recognized as such and aren't considered to be "unproven modern medicine" in the same way.

Practitioners and patients conclude from anecdotal evidence that alternative medicine treatments are effective. Until they are confirmed to work by mainstream medicine, they remain "alternative." Sometimes, studies are done that show they work. By your criteria, they cease at that point to be alternative, and cannot be used to show that alternative medicine works.

That's correct, and that should be more than sufficient reason for alt med advocates to push for testing across the board. The problem with many forms of alt med treatments is that the underlying concept stands in direct defiance of recognized chemistry, biology, or physics, and it's simply irresponsible to prescribe these treatments as true on the basis of belief or anecdote or testimony. That doesn't mean that the treatment is impossible, but acceptance of the treatment does require stronger evidence than "this treatment worked for me."

However, if you still object to the framing of the question, I'll pose a different one: has any form of alt med treatment been deliberately abandoned by alt med as a whole? And has this treatment been abandoned due to the findings of alt med practitioners? Or by conventional doctors/scientists?

I can't dispute your claim about nutrition in the 70s, except to say that I have never heard a doctor assert that one's source of amino acids doesn't really matter. Nor have I ever heard a doctor--or even heard of a doctor--who claimed that nutrition isn't important to health; this has been a part of conventional medicine for many decades. That's not to say that the details have always been correct or beyond dispute, but the basic premise (that nutrition is important) has been recognized for a long, long time.

[Why Syzygy]

37. You were advised

to locate the modernized medicine failures in this very forum. I can suggest you start with a search for Lilly. But you don't really want to see the evidence again, do you.

Energy practices are perfectly aligned with MODERN understandings of physics. The rest of that paragraph is speculation. Life Extension Foundation reports plenty of studies which are all rejected my hardliners such as yourself. Surely you don't think the pharmcos are going to sponsor research (as they do for most prescribed chemicals, more fraud) for substances that do not stand to net them a profit?

Homeopathy is regulated by the FDA. Their sanction fails to satisfy you. FDA has approved this substance, which would be classified as "alternative" if NOT sanctioned by the FDA:
http://healthlibrary.epnet.com/GetContent.aspx?token=e0498803-7f62-4563-8d47-5fe33da65dd4&chunkiid=21871
There are others like it which I won't take the time to dig up for someone who is only interested in whining and not gaining true knowledge.

You will not be convinced. I post here mostly for the benefit of other readers.

You reject studies by valid interested parties.
You define "recognized" physics as Newtonian, which when applied to the human body was debunked 85 years ago.
You refuse to look at instances of fraud in the treatment methods you accept.
You refuse to look at research in the field of bio energetics.
You keep changing the question and coming up with new ones.
You reject personal testimonials.
You reject "placebo" unless it occurs simultaneously with the products you accept.

And you want anyone to believe WE are the deceived? We read everything available for ALL forms of suggested methods and products. I think it is becoming increasingly obvious who is the irrational one here.

One more resource:
http://www.healthwikinews.com/

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

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

[Why Syzygy]

48. Now you are simply resorting to personal attacks.

That, after starting nothing but a flame bait OP.

[Orrex]

50. Is it a personal attack for me to address your dishonest accusations?

Whatever.

As I mentioned, when you have something new or interesting to contribute, let me know.

[Why Syzygy]

53. You should know that

since your group had a post of mine deleted because I said the comments were a "lie".
I didn't CALL the member a "liar".

Do not call another member of this message board a liar, and do not call another member's post a lie. You are, of course, permitted to point out when a post is untrue or factually incorrect.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html

[Orrex]

54. I'll stand by the accusation because it's true

You, in contrast, accused me of being a liar without actually using the word, and your accusation was entirely baseless, as I demonstrated.

Don't presume to lecture me on the protocols of posting, because I think we both know that you've had posts deleted for being hideously ugly attacks on other DUers.


At least when I call you a liar, I can back up the accusation. The best you can do is accuse me of dishonesty and then hide behind the TOS.

[Why Syzygy]

55. Oh dear.

We both know no such thing.

You have slipped into the realm of emotionality which I thought was foreign to you.
Finger pointing, even. tsk tsk

[Orrex]

56. Don't make me name names here.

Check your PM, if you want.

And then remind me how you're justified in complaining about others' alleged abuse of the TOS.


My mistake. I just checked, and apparently you edited the post rather let it be deleted. The point is the same; it was an ugly personal attack.

[HamdenRice]

49. Medicine is different from pure science

Doctors do, and have long done, all kinds of things that have not been proven through double blind studies to work, but that work or are believed to work based on anecdotal evidence. Some are proven to work later. Others are proven not to work. Even practices of conventional medicine that were thought to work and thought to have been proven by rigorous studies to work, turn out not to work.

I asked for an example and none was given.

Examples would be surgery for various disk problems. Surgeons performed thousands of frontal fusions only to find that they were not as effective as non-treatment, and have generally been replaced by anterior laminectomy. (This is near and dear to my heart because I almost had the ineffective surgery, but a doctor friend did a search of the literature and saved me from that fate, and I had a laminectomy.) Similar examples have to do with certain heart surgeries. When psychiatric drugs came on the scene, studies showed they were highly effective, and talk therapy was discredited, and became "alternative." Then later studies showed that cognitive talk therapy is as effective as drugs.

As for testing, I've rarely seen anyone on this forum say alternative medicine shouldn't be tested. I think the attitude you are referring to is that "rigorous testing" isn't necessarily the last word on a therapy -- especially one that anecdotal evidence suggests is effective -- because results of "rigorous testing" have so often in the past been overturned by later "rigorous testing."

Moreover, many proponents of alternative medicine do have a scientific framework. It's just that we have a different view of the full set of science -- not the scientific method, as you suggest -- but what science is. One view seems to be that there is a "big book of science" which contains all scientific knowledge and there is nothing outside it that is science. Another view is that the scientific community gropes toward an understanding of science, and what is accepted as today's scientific knowledge is a subset of the full set of all scientific principles. The big book of science will be bigger tomorrow than it is today, and it's possible that a practice that "works" today may work because it is based on principles that are not yet in the big book of science. Today, science may say that ulcers are caused by diet and stress; the idea, based on anecdotal evidence of ulcers in families, that you can "catch" an ulcer from a person with an ulcer, is absurd. Tomorrow, it turns out that ulcers are caused by Helicobacter pylori, which means you can get an ulcer by kissing or food sharing with someone who has an ulcer. (An Aussie doctor, Barry Marshall, won the Nobel Prize for this discovery.)

So the difference is that some proponents of alternative medicine will advocate continued use or experimentation or gathering of anecdotal evidence even though science "today" doesn't explain why the treatment works. That view has been validated again and again over the course of the history of medicine.

As for diet, many doctors have always acknowledged that diet was important, but recommendations of what to eat from the scientific community has varied -- just look at the food pyramid over time.

[Orrex]

52. You've given good examples

In response I would counter that rejection or revision these techniques ultimately originates from within the medical industry or from the agencies charged with policing that industry. This stands in contrast to the alternative medicine industry which does no self-policing and which fights tooth and nail to resist any regulation or oversight.

As for testing, I've rarely seen anyone on this forum say alternative medicine shouldn't be tested.

I've seen it quite a few times, in fact, and it typically takes either of two forms:

1. "Testing costs too much." Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't, but them's the breaks. Certainly a $34 billion industry could afford to fund a few objective double-blind studies.

2. "Empirical analysis is inherently biased." This is a rejection of methodology in the mistaken belief that minimizing subjective interpretation somehow taints or invalidates a test's results. In a manner of speaking, empirical analysis is biased, but it's biased in favor of what can tested experimentally.

You're not incorrect to point out the value of anecdotal evidence as a starting point, but in medicine it is never accepted as definitive or final, whereas whole swaths of the alternative medicine industry are founded on nothing except anecdotal evidence.

Marshall didn't get the Nobel because of personal testimony or anecdotal evidence; he had solid data to back up his findings (and, IIRC, he undertook a pretty spectacular method of demonstration, too).

[Crunchy Frog]

47. It's really a dishonest question, and you're comparing apples and oranges.

The $34 billion is really a drop in the bucket, and everything is lumped into that category. Sorry, I refuse to apologize to you for the fact that I take fish oil capsules, and do not think that it is relevant to the health care crisis in this country.

Big Pharma is a ruthless industry because they produce products that are necessary for people's survival, and then they price them out of people's reach, and manipulate the system into giving them vast amounts of money. That you would compare that to people taking yoga lessons or buying bottles of vitamins simply illustrates your intellectual dishonesty. A person buying a bottle of vitamins is simply not comparable to a person dying of cancer because they can't afford chemotherapy.

BTW, I wonder how much money is spent every year on soda pop. Maybe you should go after "teh evul, ruthless soda industry".

[Orrex]

51. The question is the article's headline, so blame the authors if you find it dishonest

It's hardly a drop in the bucket when we assess the demonstrated overall efficacy of the products and services that the $34 billion is purchasing.

[Crunchy Frog]

57. It was your question, not theirs, that I found intellectually dishonest.

I did a rough calculation, and figured out that this spending comes to about $117.00 per capita. You will spend more than that if you go to a movie once a month an get popcorn and a soda.

The article actually looks at some of the reasons for the spending.

But an emergency room physician in Mesa, Ariz., who has recently turned to naturopathic care for his family, believes much of it has to do with chronic illness.

"At least my world in the allopathic medicine , we do much better with acute care than we do with chronic care," said Dr. Thomas Kupka. "I think for Americans as a whole, more and more of our health care is shifting into the chronic illnesses."

If somebody is feeling bad, and is not being helped by conventional medicine, they will probably go looking for other things to help them feel better. I just don't see what's so mysterious about that, I don't see how it somehow lets the big pharmacuetical companies off the hook for the things that they do. Maybe I'm just dense though. :shrug:

[Orrex]

59. Oh--I thought you were taking issue with the subject line

Then here's the question: accepting that people feel that they are not helped by conventional medicine, why do people turn to remedies that have not been demonstrated to have any real benefit. Is it because they "feel better" for having undertaken some treatment, even if it doesn't actually do anything?

Or do they attribute their apparent improvement to the alt med remedy because they don't recognize that chronic illnesses typically follow an up and down cycle of better-then-worse-then-better. When they feel better, they attribute it to the remedy (post hoc ergo propter hoc) and when they feel worse they rationalize by saying "I guess I need more of the remedy this week."

[Crunchy Frog]

62. You'd have to ask them. In fact, there are many people on this thread

who are describing their experiences, but you're to busy trying to tell them they're wrong to actually listen.

You know, some of these things actually are likely to improve your overall wellness, or make you feel better, even if they don't actually cure any illnesses. You really think people don't get anything positive out of taking a yoga class, or getting a massage, or improving their eating habits? Whoever did that study lumped all of those things together.

In any event, it's what people are doing with their own bodies, with their own money, as private citizens, and it's really their own business. Why don't you object to people spending piles of money on movies, or sugary drinks?

[Orrex]

65. Because nobody buys movie tickets or sugary drinks in hope of finding a cure

Alt med postures itself as a treatment for use when actual treatment fails you. For that reason I hold it to a higher standard than movies or soda.

[Crunchy Frog]

79. A tiny percent of "alt med" does what you accuse it of doing.

You lump it all together, and then make sweeping accusations about it. It's really just about people doing things with their own bodies, with legally available substances or activities, to try to help themselves feel better. People watch movies and drink soda to feel good too.

You simply have an objection to people doing what they want with their own bodies, and its frankly just as stupid as those who get hysterical over what consenting adults choose to do in their own bedrooms.

[Orrex]

82. Once again, you misunderstand the issue and thus misrepresent my position

I don't care what people do with their bodies, as long as it doesn't harm others. Nowhere have I claimed that alt med should be banned nor that people should be barred from engaging in it, no matter how ill-founded their decisions may be.

You simply have an objection to people doing what they want with their own bodies, and its frankly just as stupid as those who get hysterical over what consenting adults choose to do in their own bedrooms.

Since I'm not permitted to call you a liar (though you are apparently comfortable calling me stupid), I'll simply point out that your claim is objectively false and that your posting of it is a conscious endorsement of objective falsehood. I wouldn't dream of calling you a liar or claiming that you'd lied, of course.

I have consistently objected and continue to object to the marketing of quack remedies as if they had actual, verified medical value. You see this as only a small subset of alt med as a whole, but it applies to a wide range of "supplements," to Reiki, to homeopathy, to "detoxification," to colon cleansing, and to a host of other bogus treatments. In the aggregate, these represent a considerable fraction of this noble $34 billion alt med industry.

[truedelphi]

71. But one small question -

Would you advise the eating of small crunchy frogs?

I will listen with respect to your answer. You are not going to get very far with Orrex and some of the others here.

[Orrex]

73. That's a call-out

[truedelphi]

76. It's a what? n/t

[Crunchy Frog]

78. Oh, I don't expect to get very far with him. I just find his sort annoying

and had to get my reaction off my chest.

At least maybe he can save you from yourself, and from the dire consequences of popping $15.00 worth of acidophilis tablets.