Nonsense. I don't want this to degenerate into a personal attack but I really don't like your attitude.
Of course you don't. Most people don't like it when others point out the blatant flaws in their arguments.
What about pomegranate extract for dental plaque (J Herb Pharmacother. 2006;6(2):79-92.)? Echinacea as an immunostimulant for cancer patients (J Pediatr Oncol Nurs. 2007 Jan-Feb;24(1):35-40)? Vitamin E for leukopenia caused by cancer chemotherapy (Transl Res. 2006 Dec;148(6):315-24.)? Garlic not only for heart disease but metabolic bone disorders (Phytother Res. 2006 Nov 14)?
What cracks me up is that you just typed in "alternative medicine" into PubMed, and cited whatever came up, without actually looking at the studies you mention. I read them, here's what you held up as "scientifically-proved" alternative therapies.
J Herb Pharmaco - a "pomegranate extract" is equivalent to standard soaps for cleaning dentures
Pediatr Oncol Nurs - this
is not a clinical study, it is an advisory paper for nurses, warning them that their patient may use alternative therapies for assorted reasons
Trans Rel - Vitamin E may mitigate leukopenia in chemotherapy treated
rats but only in high doses; and here, let me quote from the paper's conclusion, "However, a recent meta-analysis of the dose-response relationship between vitamin E supplementation and total mortality found that high-dosage vitamin E (≥400 IU/day) showed increased risk for all-cause mortality."
Phytother Res - garlic extract had a modest effect on estrogen titers in rats
Wow, impressive. This is pretty typical of the CAM literature. A couple rat studies, a little speculation, and zero clinically-relevant results. Remember clinical outcomes? Isn't that what we're supposed to care about when it comes to drug studies?
Please- don't kid yourself. Many of our modern medicines today are jazzed up derivatives of plants found in nature. Just because we don't chant spells when we administer them and they are in encapsulated form doesn't mean that natural sources of relief are invalid.
Actually, almost all our medicines are "jazzed up derivatives of plants found in nature." See, I'm not anti-nature. I'm just saying that, before we throw medicines (including "natural" medicines) they should be subjected to the same standards of evidence as a pharmaceuticals and therapeutic treatments.
Apparently you're not up to date on the latest acupuncture research either. Although results are mixed, scientists are currently working on electroacupuncture- blending modern technology with old practice to relieve pain. Check out the study two months ago from the University of Vienna or the ones in Sweden. Or the studies done in Japan on acupuncture relieving back pain. I don't really feel like searching for them (you can- I assume you'll be more thorough this time) but I think it's unfortunate that there are people narrow-minded enough to dismiss it simply because it isn't shiny and involve tons of electronic gadgets.
I love it, the results are "mixed" but you want to recommend it anyway. Would you recommend a contraceptive with "mixed" results? An antibiotic? A pain reliever? FDA-approved medications require demonstrable benefit that outweighs potential side-effects. Funny how CAM doesn't feel the need to demonstrate such common-sense.
I will absolutely be encouraging my patients to have faith in addition to using Western medicine. The psychosomatic HAS been verified in studies and can take powerful strides in overcoming an illness, with and without modern medicine.
I get it. You tell them that a treatment works when it doesn't, that way they believe you, and they cure themselves with their own mind. Great plan.
Although it can be difficult to measure things like satisfaction and amount of belief, the reasoning behind it is no different than Western medicine: it works. It has worked. And hopefully, by applying experience and new technology to it, it can work even better in the future. Is there a guarantee of success? Of course not. But you'll never find a 100% success rate with ANY treatment- the body is too complicated, and other systems or underlying factors may unexpectedly interfere.
Yes, so why are you so hot to prescribe treatments before they have clear and convincing evidence that they work? Why would you recommend treatments with a few rat studies backing them up, instead of human RCTs?
With that, we come to the heart of my definition of alternative medicine: a holistic approach. In my admittedly- humble, very small experience with medicine, very often Western doctors are too quick to approach a problem with the rationale: "Okay, let's isolate the problem. And then fix it." One of the biggest flaws with many medical diagnostic protocols in America (and again, apologies to doctors who do not fit this category: this is not meant as a generalization) is that they are too quick to treat the symptom, not the illness. And this is one of the problems holistic and alternative medicine attempts to correct.
And thus we come to the crux of your argument. Western medicine doesn't treat the "whole person". Whatever that means. Please feel free to detail for us exactly what this means, since as far as I can tell, you want to use CAM for the same problems Western medicine treats, you just don't want to subject it to the same scientific standards of effectiveness.
What "illnesses" does Western medicine fail to treat?
So I suggest you take a better look at your research and think again before you come here with brash claims criticizing alternative and holistic medicine. And save the attitude also.
Ah, the second-to-the-last rhetorical tool of someone who knows their argument is failing.
I predict your next post will end with, "Well, if you're going to be so rude, I'm not going to bother to respond to you anymore."