Naturopath

[firebug]

Originally Posted by troutman

Right. CAM is allergic to science.

Zulu is exactly right, medicine has to act under the paradigm that it is effective.

CAM, or rather 'Big Placebo,' has no such requirement.

~bug

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by firebug

Zulu is exactly right, medicine has to act under the paradigm that it is effective.

CAM, or rather 'Big Placebo,' has no such requirement.

~bug

The paradigm for mainstream medicine is that it is effective for mass production and delivery, thus needing to be as generic as possible. Pharmacology and surgery fit that bill perfectly.

[To Be Quite Honest]

Study - http://www.pmri.org/research.html#articles

" http://www.energiseforlife.com/wordp...ajor-benefits/ found it from here.

The research was led by Dr. Dean Ornish, head of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, and a well-known author advocating lifestyle changes to improve health."

Are you reading or comprehending? Study - Here is the institute where all his studies are with articles.

Found the Doctor on the next link. Whilst I did say link, it is just where I found the Doctors name. So I linked it in my head.

So, I'll just email him... Do some research for you.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by zuluking

You missed the point. Your paradigm is stuck in conventional medicine, so all your responses are designed to again try and shove alternative medicine into the conventional medicine methodology. I'm suggesting that the mainstream medicine paradigm does not apply to alternative medicine. You can find 1000 people suffering from the same symptoms, but can you find 1000 people in the exact same personal situation? Nope, probably not even ten. Does it mean that studies couldn't be designed somehow that prove some of these approaches? Not necessarily. However, those types of studies wouldn't / aren't accepted merely because they don't follow the conventional model. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

In reality, it's better that way for the entrenched mainstream medical community because it's easier to take potshots at the unproven as cover for the misapplication of their own modality. And there's enough vague diagnoses in the mainstream medical community that they could qualify for the label "quackery" as well, since labelling is your thing.

I don't agree with you there. For one, many so-called alternative medicines are implausible (e.g. homeopathy). If it's implausible and it also doesn't show benefits in clinical trials then there is no reason to believe it works. Acupuncture is somewhere in between; trials show that sticking needles in people can have effects on things like chronic pain, but that it doesn't matter where the needles are placed (or, in some studies, whether they actually penetrate the skin), suggesting that the underlying theory is wrong but there may be some benefit.

Herbal medicines have some plausibility in general, but they are well-suited to traditional clinical trials. Herbal medicines are drugs just like pharmaceuticals, and act by specific chemicals in the herb acting on the body (they can also have drug interactions, just like pharmaceuticals), so they can be tested in exactly the same way as pharmaceuticals. Some herbal products have been found to be beneficial in clinical trials, but many others have been found to be ineffective (some have also been found harmful). Personally I would rather have the active chemical extracted so I can have a tested medication that is administered in controlled doses rather than one with less controls and often highly variable concentrations of the active chemical, but that's just my preference.

The whole argument about treatments needing to be tailored to the individual is a cop-out and is just a way to argue why people should accept a certain type of treatment without scientific evidence, or in many cases any plausible reason why it should be expected to work. That's not to say a doctor or other medical professional shouldn't look at an individual, particularly when dealing with lifestyle-related conditions, but that doesn't mean that specific treatments can't be tested.

[firebug]

Originally Posted by zuluking

The paradigm for mainstream medicine is that it is effective for mass production and delivery, thus needing to be as generic as possible. Pharmacology and surgery fit that bill perfectly.

Absolutely.

I gave up on the generic laws of physics and chemistry years ago.

You should see the law of Gravity I had my barrister draft up just for me.

We won't even talk about my laws of thermodynamics. Wowza is an understatement.

~bug

[Pinner]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

Herbal medicines have some plausibility in general, but they are well-suited to traditional clinical trials.

Don't most pharmaceuticals evolve from herbals ?

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Don't most pharmaceuticals evolve from herbals ?

A lot do, yes. They take the active chemical from a herbal, extract it (or synthesize it) and administer it in controlled doses.

[Mccree]

[firebug]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

A lot do, yes. They take the active chemical from a herbal, extract it (or synthesize it) and administer it in controlled doses.

Also commonly occurring in this process is testing to determine which compound in the plant is actually providing the benefit, determining which dose provides the optimal benefit with reduced side effects, and eliminating other naturally occurring compounds which cause negative side effects.

[anecdote]
A good example of this is Aspirin. Salicin is a compound first identified from willow-bark which was boiled in a tea and drank for pain relief.

The synthesized form (ASA) is more potent (ie. you don't need to drink a couple gallons) and has fewer side effects than the natural form.

(link)

[/anecdote]

Herbal remedies without any benefits are sold to the gullible as 'Natural Remedies.' Those with proven clinical effectiveness are called 'Medicine.'

~bug

[photon]

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Study - http://www.pmri.org/research.html#articles

" http://www.energiseforlife.com/wordp...ajor-benefits/ found it from here.

The research was led by Dr. Dean Ornish, head of the Preventive Medicine Research Institute in Sausalito, California, and a well-known author advocating lifestyle changes to improve health."

I didn't claim that the two articles you mentioned were not lead by Mr. Ornish.

Originally Posted by To Be Quite Honest

Are you reading or comprehending? Study - Here is the institute where all his studies are with articles.

I read the study you mentioned, and as I said before the study you mentioned doesn't say anything about blood pH or alkaline food or leeching of nutrients.

Since you ignored the question before I'll ask again, have you read the paper? If you have, please quote the specific portions of the paper that relate directly to the question of blood pH and food and leeching of nutrients. Otherwise admit that the paper does not speak to those things.

Your evasion and ignoring of other questions and points is noted.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by firebug

Also commonly occurring in this process is testing to determine which compound in the plant is actually providing the benefit, determining which dose provides the optimal benefit with reduced side effects, and eliminating other naturally occurring compounds which cause negative side effects.

[anecdote]
A good example of this is Aspirin. Salicin is a compound first identified from willow-bark which was boiled in a tea and drank for pain relief.

The synthesized form (ASA) is more potent (ie. you don't need to drink a couple gallons) and has fewer side effects than the natural form.

(link)

[/anecdote]

Herbal remedies without any benefits are sold to the gullible as 'Natural Remedies.' Those with proven clinical effectiveness are called 'Medicine.'

~bug

Yeah but the Chi in the root bark was where the real magic happens, so the evil scientists got a hold of this pure and natural form of healing and made it so its way more profitable and mass produced to make billions and ultimately lead to global domination.

RIP Root Bark.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Pinner

Don't most pharmaceuticals evolve from herbals ?

This used to be true but it is becoming more common to discover drug candidates via other methods. For example, combinatorial chemistry is used to generate a library of compounds (say 10,000 compounds) which are screened for hits. Combi-chem isn't very efficient but you often get a few hits out of each library. The most intriguing approach, in my opinion, is target-oriented synthesis whereby a drug is tailor made to interact specifically with an enzyme of interest. Target-oriented synthesis requires an intimate understanding of the site of interest, which is easier said than done.

That being said, you would have to be a fool to not take inspiration from nature. I've personally synthesized several natural products in the lab, but I'll be the first to admit that my synthetic routes are nowhere near as elegant as the natural process. Nature really is amazing.

Someone also mentioned drugs designed for individuals, which is currently a pipe dream. I do believe that this will be possible in the next 100 years though.

Finally, I honestly have no idea why herbal remedies aren't subject to the same guidelines that pharmaceuticals are. It makes no sense.

[Kybosh]

Originally Posted by Thor

Yeah but the Chi in the root bark was where the real magic happens, so the evil scientists got a hold of this pure and natural form of healing and made it so its way more profitable and mass produced to make billions and ultimately lead to global domination.

RIP Root Bark.

A Short History of Medicine

My stomach hurts:

2000 B.C. -Here, eat this root.
1000 A.D. -That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer.
1850 A.D. -That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion.
1940 A.D. -That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill.
1985 A.D. -That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic.
2000 A.D. -That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Ashartus

I don't agree with you there. For one, many so-called alternative medicines are implausible (e.g. homeopathy). If it's implausible and it also doesn't show benefits in clinical trials then there is no reason to believe it works. Acupuncture is somewhere in between; trials show that sticking needles in people can have effects on things like chronic pain, but that it doesn't matter where the needles are placed (or, in some studies, whether they actually penetrate the skin), suggesting that the underlying theory is wrong but there may be some benefit.

Herbal medicines have some plausibility in general, but they are well-suited to traditional clinical trials. Herbal medicines are drugs just like pharmaceuticals, and act by specific chemicals in the herb acting on the body (they can also have drug interactions, just like pharmaceuticals), so they can be tested in exactly the same way as pharmaceuticals. Some herbal products have been found to be beneficial in clinical trials, but many others have been found to be ineffective (some have also been found harmful). Personally I would rather have the active chemical extracted so I can have a tested medication that is administered in controlled doses rather than one with less controls and often highly variable concentrations of the active chemical, but that's just my preference.

The whole argument about treatments needing to be tailored to the individual is a cop-out and is just a way to argue why people should accept a certain type of treatment without scientific evidence, or in many cases any plausible reason why it should be expected to work. That's not to say a doctor or other medical professional shouldn't look at an individual, particularly when dealing with lifestyle-related conditions, but that doesn't mean that specific treatments can't be tested.

I appreciate your use of "implausible" versus "impossible" as most detractors suggest. However, some of the implausible modes of treatment have proven to be very effective to individuals. One can only discount so much efficacy to the placebo effect. Nor should one disregard or discount due to a lack of understanding or a lack of "fitting" with the currently accepted doctrine. In other words, 100 individuals with anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of an alternative treatment is invalid; but 100 individuals in a clinical trial is irrefutable evidence of the lack of efficacy. Even basic common sense says that this doesn't add up.

I do somewhat agree with you on some alternative medicine like herbals. That's why I've always indicated "most" or "many" alternative therapies don't coincide with the scientific methods of proof. Even then, sometimes the forest is missed due to the trees as scientists are still looking for something that fits within their own existing paradigm (sorry for the broken record.)

We'll likely disagree on your last point though. Each person's optimal health should be tailored specifically to them. I believe it is a cop-out to think the health care is a one-size-fits-all routine and I think that this approach is a significant contributor to many of common health problems (or at least a blockage to the resolution to many common health problems.) We put too much confidence in others (medical community) for knowing what we need as individuals to maintain our health. And I don't believe that merely substituting a homeopathic doctor for a medical doctor is the answer either.

People need to take ownership of their individual situations, understand the alternatives, research the background and context, and then endeavor to apply the appropriate solution to whatever health objective they're trying to achieve within their own level of comfort and tolerance. If someone experiences really good results from naturopathy, why would we go out of our way to belittle and degrade this mode of treatment even to the point of banning it so those that did gain benefit are now denied?

[photon]

Originally Posted by zuluking

One can only discount so much efficacy to the placebo effect.

This is true, but without some actual way to determine if something exceeds the placebo effect, how do you know beyond a bare assertion.

Even if you think that alternative medicine doesn't fit in the "paradigm" of conventional medicine (whatever that means), you do agree that it is in principle within the realm of study and understanding do you not? Otherwise there could be no diagnosis at all.

If so then it falls inside the purview of science.

Originally Posted by zuluking

Nor should one disregard or discount due to a lack of understanding or a lack of "fitting" with the currently accepted doctrine.

What doctrine? Discounting isn't usually done because it isn't understood, it's usually discounted because it doesn't do anything.

Originally Posted by zuluking

In other words, 100 individuals with anecdotal evidence of the efficacy of an alternative treatment is invalid; but 100 individuals in a clinical trial is irrefutable evidence of the lack of efficacy. Even basic common sense says that this doesn't add up.

All a clinical trial is is a controlled setup of anecdotal evidence to try and isolate something and control the variables.

You can't have it both ways, you can't say that 100 individuals with anecdotal evidence is valid evidence but then say that when the anecdotal evidence is put into a situation where the variables are known that it can't be studied that way.

The problem with anecdotal evidence is there is nothing to prevent cognitive biases and other problems from affecting the perception, and there are many well known cognitive biases that directly interfere. No matter how much flawed data you add up it's still flawed data.

I guess it boils down to one question, ignoring everything else, is alternative medicine in principle something that can be studied with science in your opinion, ignoring any barriers to results being accepted, ignoring trying to fit within a specific methodology, etc?

[Kelekin]

1) Alternative medicine that works = medicine.

2) Power of suggestion + placebo = effectiveness.

Wow, and it all it took me was two lines to boil down such a ridiculous debate that isn't going to go anywhere.