That's not really true. Nobody ever tests what the Naturopaths/Homeopaths/Chinese Medicine practitioners prescribe in double blind laboratory tests because the cost of testing is too high and you can't patent it if it works.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so untrue. In fact its pennies. Say Chinese herb iforrealz is claimed to reduce stomach problems.. The pharm company spends a few hundred thousand to study if there is any hint of truth to this. If it yeilds any results they spend more, if not they don't..
Quote:
Basically, there is no money in these remedies, so it doesn't get tested, so traditional medicine doesn't every incorporate it because it isn't proven.
lol, yeah no money in something that works. Right.
Quote:
I've seen people have some really good success with minor issues using Naturopaths. My view is if you have a condition, are sick, etc, you go to the doctor who will try get you back to normal. You go to a Naturopath/Homeopath, etc when your not happy with your normal, and are willing to take the risks of making your normal worse, for the smaller chance that you'll make it better. Adopting a good diet, sleep, and exercise routine is going to have a lot more benefit for 99% of people.
You really really really really need to watch and read Ben Goldacres bad science.
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by sworkhard
That's not really true. Nobody ever tests what the Naturopaths/Homeopaths/Chinese Medicine practitioners prescribe in double blind laboratory tests because the cost of testing is too high and you can't patent it if it works. Basically, there is no money in these remedies, so it doesn't get tested, so traditional medicine doesn't every incorporate it because it isn't proven.
False. Drug companies test herbal medicines to find out the active ingredients, then synthesize them, then patent them, then sell them. For example 5 seconds on google found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel, which was discovered by analyzing the anti-cancer effects of Pacific yew tree bark.
I think you greatly underestimate the ingenuity of pharmaceutical companies. If they thought that something would work they will spend the money to test it and find a way to modify it just enough to receive a patent.
To argue that naturopathy works is to accept that pharmaceutical companies make enough money and don`t really want to make any more.
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh so untrue. In fact its pennies. Say Chinese herb iforrealz is claimed to reduce stomach problems.. The pharm company spends a few hundred thousand to study if there is any hint of truth to this. If it yeilds any results they spend more, if not they don't..
lol, yeah no money in something that works. Right.
You really really really really need to watch and read Ben Goldacres bad science.
A few hundred thousand is pennies? They will never make that back unless they manage to create a method of extracting the agent that causes the reduced stomach problems, or find a way to cost effectively create the compound synthetically. They can then patent the extraction method or synthetic compound and sell those. Outside of this there is no way to make money on it, so no reason for big pharma to pursue them, especially considering they are working on finding cures for things like cancer and other diseases that, AFAIK, naturopaths, etc don't claim to be able to cure. (I'm assuming the natural product doesn't claim to cure cancer, or an other chronic, deadly, or acute condition)
There are many smaller companies, most relatively new, that are researching how to extract/synthetically produce the compounds that work from plants that have a lot of anecdotal evidence. Usually they will focus on a plant with potential (ginseng, ginger, etc) and see what they can do with them. The results of these have hit the shelves in the past few years with brands selling off the self versions of products made with natural extracts instead of drugs. The drugs in these cases usually are used for more severe conditions and only available over the counter, or with a prescription, and the extracts provide a easier to access alternative.
I'm not saying that even 10% of what some Naturopaths and related professions claim to be able to do actually works, just saying that they can (not will) improve some people's quality of life, although usually less than eating better and exercising more would.
If big placebo keeps people from running to their doctors for perscriptions, especially antibiotics then thier is some benefit to society
If people feel healthier and better as a result of a placebo then they are better off. I think the idea of using a placebo as a real treatment has a lot of merit. If you look at double blind studies the placebo at least 20% effective and often more of eliminating the symtoms.
So if a gullible person pays money and feels better does it matter if the doctor did absolutly nothing?
I do see the risk in people believing they can do things they cant but by licensing them you provide limitations on what they can do.
False. Drug companies test herbal medicines to find out the active ingredients, then synthesize them, then patent them, then sell them. For example 5 seconds on google found http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paclitaxel, which was discovered by analyzing the anti-cancer effects of Pacific yew tree bark.
There are plenty of similar examples. That is completely beside that point and in no way validates that point that if what alternative medicine prescribes works there would be a drug based on it available. The claim that just because a drug company hasn't yet released a drug based on a compound that alternative medicine claims works means that it doesn't work ignores the facts that it takes time and costs money to investigate these compounds, and then turn them into profitable forms. There are 10's of thousands of natural remedies, and there is no way that drug companies are going to spend a lot money looking into something that, while it may provide a benefit for a very small portion of the population, doesn't claim cure anything chronic, deadly, or acute.
Further, many of the prescriptions prescribed by alternative medicine are simply vitamin and mineral combinations you can buy off the shelf nearly anywhere, often with some decent evidence, but not statistically valid double blind study quality evidence. This is why I keep saying a healthy diet and exercise routine has a greater benefit to most people.
If big placebo keeps people from running to their doctors for perscriptions, especially antibiotics then thier is some benefit to society
If people feel healthier and better as a result of a placebo then they are better off. I think the idea of using a placebo as a real treatment has a lot of merit. If you look at double blind studies the placebo at least 20% effective and often more of eliminating the symtoms.
So if a gullible person pays money and feels better does it matter if the doctor did absolutly nothing?
I do see the risk in people believing they can do things they cant but by licensing them you provide limitations on what they can do.
My bigger concern is if what they prescribe results in long term damage to a person's health. Naturopaths often make the mistakes that assuming it's safe because it's natural when, in large enough doses, natural products can be just as dangerous and have just as many side effects as drugs do.
They showed some quack on the news today moving his hands around above some woman's head.
__________________
But living an honest life - for that you need the truth. That's the other thing I learned that day, that the truth, however shocking or uncomfortable, leads to liberation and dignity. -Ricky Gervais
This is why I keep saying a healthy diet and exercise routine has a greater benefit to most people.
Solid advice, and by the way what science says too.
You are clinging to pseudo science in your arguments, trying to find logical reasons why naturopaths or alternative medicine have a reason for existing in this modern age..
But you are losing a battle of logic, sorry, but there is no great conspiracy, there are no great cures, treatments or benefits to "natural" remedies that isn't already in our medical literature or part of our understanding, anything outside that HAS to earn its way in by being tested.
Double blind studies are not that expensive, and there is no reason why any claim by these people cannot be tackled.
A great example is anti oxidants, took us probably 3 decades and intial promising research, but now with meta analysis we know its bunk and we were dead wrong about its benefits.
So we have to be diligent, we have to attack all claims and we have to rely on something that we can trust to give us the truth whether we like it or not, and that my friends is the scientific method.
Good night, and good luck.
__________________ Allskonar fyrir Aumingja!!
The Following User Says Thank You to Thor For This Useful Post:
If people feel healthier and better as a result of a placebo then they are better off. I think the idea of using a placebo as a real treatment has a lot of merit. If you look at double blind studies the placebo at least 20% effective and often more of eliminating the symtoms.
But it just relieves the symptoms, and generally just subjective ones. For example there was some recent work done on asthmatics with placebos - the placebo group thought they were breathing better, but when lung function was actually measured it was no different than the group receiving no treatment at all. So I guess it could be great for hypochondriacs, but not really much help for people with real health issues.
The only people I've talked to that practice alternative medicine seem to prescribe variants of traditional Chinese remedies modified by some basic science. Beyond that, the ones I talked to do some muscle work (basic massage type stuff) which probably helps people more than the prescriptions. Homoeopathy as presented in this video may help people in the same way a placebo will, but that's it.
Solid advice, and by the way what science says too.
You are clinging to pseudo science in your arguments, trying to find logical reasons why naturopaths or alternative medicine have a reason for existing in this modern age..
But you are losing a battle of logic, sorry, but there is no great conspiracy, there are no great cures, treatments or benefits to "natural" remedies that isn't already in our medical literature or part of our understanding, anything outside that HAS to earn its way in by being tested.
Double blind studies are not that expensive, and there is no reason why any claim by these people cannot be tackled.
A great example is anti oxidants, took us probably 3 decades and intial promising research, but now with meta analysis we know its bunk and we were dead wrong about its benefits.
So we have to be diligent, we have to attack all claims and we have to rely on something that we can trust to give us the truth whether we like it or not, and that my friends is the scientific method.
Good night, and good luck.
No disagreement there. I don't even recall arguing that these groups aught to exists. I also agree most of what alternative medicine has listed is already more or less common knowledge in the medical community. I'm certainly not arguing that there are any great cures, treatments or benefits from alternative medicine. I'm only arguing that it's highly unlikely that all of the traditional herbal remedies have already been explored by drug companies, and as such, the statement that any remedy prescribed that's any good is already provided by drug companies is almost certainly false. As much as we've learned about our bodies, there's even more we don't know.
Solid advice, and by the way what science says too.
You are clinging to pseudo science in your arguments, trying to find logical reasons why naturopaths or alternative medicine have a reason for existing in this modern age..
But you are losing a battle of logic, sorry, but there is no great conspiracy, there are no great cures, treatments or benefits to "natural" remedies that isn't already in our medical literature or part of our understanding, anything outside that HAS to earn its way in by being tested.
Double blind studies are not that expensive, and there is no reason why any claim by these people cannot be tackled.
A great example is anti oxidants, took us probably 3 decades and intial promising research, but now with meta analysis we know its bunk and we were dead wrong about its benefits.
So we have to be diligent, we have to attack all claims and we have to rely on something that we can trust to give us the truth whether we like it or not, and that my friends is the scientific method.
Good night, and good luck.
Do you see any harm in using something that isn't scientifically proven either in conjunction with or after exhausting all mainstream methods?
I mean the way I see it is, if you have terminal cancer, probably no harm in trying something in connection with chemo (assuming the doctor's don't think it will inhibit the effects of the chemo), what have you got to lose?
And let me be clear, i think naturopathy is bullsnot and naturopaths should not be called doctors, but at the same time, what's wrong with a little placebo effect, hell, do you know how many people go into work with a cold who would otherwise have called in sick because they took echinacea (sp?)???
Solid advice, and by the way what science says too.
You are clinging to pseudo science in your arguments, trying to find logical reasons why naturopaths or alternative medicine have a reason for existing in this modern age..
But you are losing a battle of logic, sorry, but there is no great conspiracy, there are no great cures, treatments or benefits to "natural" remedies that isn't already in our medical literature or part of our understanding, anything outside that HAS to earn its way in by being tested.
Double blind studies are not that expensive, and there is no reason why any claim by these people cannot be tackled.
A great example is anti oxidants, took us probably 3 decades and intial promising research, but now with meta analysis we know its bunk and we were dead wrong about its benefits.
So we have to be diligent, we have to attack all claims and we have to rely on something that we can trust to give us the truth whether we like it or not, and that my friends is the scientific method.
But it just relieves the symptoms, and generally just subjective ones. For example there was some recent work done on asthmatics with placebos - the placebo group thought they were breathing better, but when lung function was actually measured it was no different than the group receiving no treatment at all. So I guess it could be great for hypochondriacs, but not really much help for people with real health issues.
But asthma is a real disease that needs real treatment, the ones where placebos have their place are the joint / back pain, colds, flus, headaches, where a placebo will work as well as the off the shelf stuff.
I do agree that their is risk with the natural means safe problem and letting probems get worse before they are really treated but as long as they arent funded i dont have an issue with them.
I think regulation is also a good thing as leaving them under the radar will not solve the issues being raised here
Dislike a lot, and my biggest reason was mentioned by GP_Matt. Those who aren't aware that these 'Medical Professionals' don't have any evidence backing their claims may forego treatment using evidence-based medicine in favour of this stuff, with potentially awful results.
Do you see any harm in using something that isn't scientifically proven either in conjunction with or after exhausting all mainstream methods?
I mean the way I see it is, if you have terminal cancer, probably no harm in trying something in connection with chemo (assuming the doctor's don't think it will inhibit the effects of the chemo), what have you got to lose?
And let me be clear, i think naturopathy is bullsnot and naturopaths should not be called doctors, but at the same time, what's wrong with a little placebo effect, hell, do you know how many people go into work with a cold who would otherwise have called in sick because they took echinacea (sp?)???
I agree.
If all else has failed and you are going to die, might as well try some placebo effect combined with a microscopic chance it might do something.
I have an Aunt who has stage lung cancer go into remission about 12 years ago due to some juice she drank. Tried it with my dad when he got the same cancer and it didn't do squat. We knew it was a shot in the dark, but when modern medicine says you are SoL, you might as well.
__________________
"Wake up, Luigi! The only time plumbers sleep on the job is when we're working by the hour."
