Alternative Medicine

[ahhhhhhhhhh]

Advertisement - Members don't see this ad

What are the ethical dilemmas surrounding alternative medicine? I am assuming it encompasses acupuncture, herbal medicine, etc.

 

[NickNaylor]

What are the ethical dilemmas surrounding alternative medicine? I am assuming it encompasses acupuncture, herbal medicine, etc.

There aren't really any "ethical dilemmas" other than 1) not harming your patient if you're an alternative medicine practitioner and/or 2) ensuring that your patient discloses any alternative medicine practices if you're a traditional physician.

If people see improvement in symptoms and it isn't harming them, why not let them go at it?

 

[thesauce]

There aren't really any "ethical dilemmas" other than 1) not harming your patient if you're an alternative medicine practitioner and/or 2) ensuring that your patient discloses any alternative medicine practices if you're a traditional physician.

If people see improvement in symptoms and it isn't harming them, why not let them go at it?

The trick is proving that there's no harm. You'll hear so many cases where these "harmless" herbal remedies end up interfering with proven, effective treatment methods. Some have been identified as risk factors for cardiac disease, cancer, etc. The harm might not be immediately apparent, but manifest later.

OP: the issue is that, for many of these treatments, there is scarce evidence of efficacy or even safety.

 

[235788]

The trick is proving that there's no harm. You'll hear so many cases where these "harmless" herbal remedies end up interfering with proven, effective treatment methods. Some have been identified as risk factors for cardiac disease, cancer, etc. The harm might not be immediately apparent, but manifest later.

OP: the issue is that, for many of these treatments, there is scarce evidence of efficacy or even safety.

Yes, exactly. Doctors, as scientists, should suggest "proven" treatments. I think its up to the patient to decide whether or not they want to try the alternatives.

 

[candav]

Yes, exactly. Doctors, as scientists, should suggest "proven" treatments. I think its up to the patient to decide whether or not they want to try the alternatives.

My understanding is that many, if not most, patients who seek alternative options do so due to a lack of conventional options. For instance, most alternative therapies are geared towards prevention and chronic illness, areas often considered deficient in allopathic medicine.

Regarding evidence, it is often difficult to study complementary or alternative medicine using the accepted research structures. How do you blind a participant to acupuncture, or massage, or yoga? How do you standardize a treatment that is inherently individualistic across an experimental group? How do you test a therapy that incorporates pharmacological, lifestyle and psychological components? By requiring that alternative treatments conform to the randomized controlled trial model (which is often considered the only truly "acceptable" form of research evidence), I wonder if certain alternative treatments will ever be able to enter allopathic practice.

 

[Morzh]

My understanding is that many, if not most, patients who seek alternative options do so due to a lack of conventional options. For instance, most alternative therapies are geared towards prevention and chronic illness, areas often considered deficient in allopathic medicine.

Regarding evidence, it is often difficult to study complementary or alternative medicine using the accepted research structures. How do you blind a participant to acupuncture, or massage, or yoga? How do you standardize a treatment that is inherently individualistic across an experimental group? How do you test a therapy that incorporates pharmacological, lifestyle and psychological components? By requiring that alternative treatments conform to the randomized controlled trial model (which is often considered the only truly "acceptable" form of research evidence), I wonder if certain alternative treatments will ever be able to enter allopathic practice.

Perhaps not, but that's OK. As has been said, as long as there is a reasonable assurance that alternative treatments are causing no harm and that people don't use them to replace (rather than supplement only) needed evidenced-based treatments, then there is nothing wrong with them. Maybe it's just a placebo (if it works, it works...), maybe the benefits are just a part of the generalized effects of "stress relief" and relaxation, or maybe there really is some underlying physiological mechanism responsible for its effects, but we are not yet able to prove it.

The point the other poster was making is that practitioners of evidence-based medicine have a responsibility to understand and prescribe (primarily) treatments that meet a certain standard of scientific credibility. Holding us to that standard allows patients to trust that their physicians are up-to-date with the relevant peer-reviewed data and are in the best possible position to make informed decisions. When we offer advice or prescribe a treatment, our patients should be able to trust that that treatment is legit as can be, usually meaning that it has passed rigorous clinical trials.

At the same time physicians should not dismiss or ridicule a form of alternative medicine simply because it is not as scientifically sound as evidence-based medicine. For more on this I recommend you read the University of Washington SOM's Bioethics module on this subject. A couple excerpts:

What ethical issues are associated with complementary medicine?

"Complementary medicine" implies cooperation between two or more approaches to treatment, each balancing and complementing the other(s). The recent appearance of "complementary medicine," to replace the older term "alternative," signifies the desire in the complementary community to integrate their services with allopathic methods. Simultaneously, patients are showing more interest in and requesting complementary therapies. Thus the referral of patients to complementary practitioners has emerged as a fundamental ethical question for physicians.
The normally straightforward duty to direct patients to treatments that are known to be effective, and to advise them against those that are useless or harmful is seriously confounded in the case of complementary medicine by physicians' scant knowledge (and negative preconceptions) of alternative therapies, the sheer number and bewildering variety of practices that fall under the complementary heading (no one can be familiar with them all), and the shortage of evidence for the efficacy of many complementary treatments. The decision to refer or not to refer should be based on sufficient information about the benefits and dangers of the treatment being considered, and too often in the case of complementary therapies the information either does not exist or is not known to the physician. This situation is certain to improve over the next few years, given the quantity of research now being done on the efficacy of complimentary medicine; for now, the physician may often find herself unsure whether to refer to an alternative practitioner or not. There is nevertheless an ethical obligation to attempt to stay current with evidence for effectiveness of complementary therapies, since presenting conventional treatment as the only option for a condition would in certain situations deny a patient the help of a useful CAM method. Physicians should apply a risk-benefit analysis to each case, weighing the evidence for efficacy and harm for both conventional and complementary therapies, while also taking into account the severity of the patient's illness and the degree to which the patient desires CAM treatment.

What are the physician's professional obligations with respect to complementary medicine?

Offhand dismissal or ridicule of complementary medicine will only close off communication with patients, and perhaps encourage them to seek complementary options more aggressively. Rather, the allopathic practitioner must encourage patients to inform him of their use of complementary therapies, and should attempt both to learn more about the complementary methods his patients select, and to coordinate care with their complementary practitioners.

 

[Law2Doc]

My understanding is that many, if not most, patients who seek alternative options do so due to a lack of conventional options.

this is a false statement, and is the problem most physicians have with alternative medicine. It is neither an alternative nor is it medicine. But the public doesn't know any better and many many people (probably the majority who see alternative medicine folks) seek out these alternatives instead of seeing a real doctor. And it often results in not getting the treatment that could help them in a timely fashion, or getting supplements that are actually contradicted for their condition, etc. The public doesn't get that these are not doctors, certainly have not exhausted conventional options at this juncture, and that there is often little to no evidence based science behind their practices. Basically the public gets duped. You will be surprised how many patients show up having not seen a real doctor in years, trying to have a serious, potentially curable condition dealt with by herbalists. If it were just a handful of patients for whom conventional options were exhausted that would be fine, but there is no money in that. So these guys market themselves for a whole host of ailments for which there are conventional treatments the patients really ought to be treated. They are preying on people who don't really understand that there's a difference between science and wives tales.

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

this is a false statement, and is the problem most physicians have with alternative medicine. It is neither an alternative nor is it medicine. But the public doesn't know any better and many many people (probably the majority who see alternative medicine folks) seek out these alternatives instead of seeing a real doctor. And it often results in not getting the treatment that could help them in a timely fashion, or getting supplements that are actually contradicted for their condition, etc. The public doesn't get that these are not doctors, certainly have not exhausted conventional options at this juncture, and that there is often little to no evidence based science behind their practices. Basically the public gets duped. You will be surprised how many patients show up having not seen a real doctor in years, trying to have a serious, potentially curable condition dealt with by herbalists. If it were just a handful of patients for whom conventional options were exhausted that would be fine, but there is no money in that. So these guys market themselves for a whole host of ailments for which there are conventional treatments the patients really ought to be treated. They are preying on people who don't really understand that there's a difference between science and wives tales.

I would also say that it really depends on the type of CAM. If you have lower back pain, why not see a chiropractor BEFORE you go thorugh surgery or put drugs into your body (becasue while we all like to think that our medicine is perfect, we have no idea what the majority of drugs are doing to our bodies). And there are alternates to allopathic care. I volunteer at a place that has both Naturopathic Doctors and Allopathic Doctors. Both have essentially the same medical school training (except NDs get the herbal stuff, too). And actually, a lot of the professors at the MD school here in Oregon teach at the ND school as well. Anyway, I've spoken with a lot of the NDs and they still think that if you have cancer, you need to be seeing an oncologist. The biggest difference is that they look at the whole person and recommend changes in your life style and preventative medicine. For example, if you are showing signs that you might get diabetes, they will put you on some naturopatchi regiments at a stage when MDs would turn you away because you aren't sick enough yet. However, if you come in with 200/120 BP, they aren't goign to go for the herbs but will put you on a normal MD drug because "all of the naturopathic BP med combined will amount to just one MD BP med" (one of the NDs where I volunteer).

Furthermore, there is a way to test acupuncture and a trauma surgeon that I shadow is actually researching acupuncture's use as a sedative 🙂.

 

[Musclemass]

...... If you have lower back pain, why not see a chiropractor BEFORE you go thorugh surgery or put drugs into your body (becasue while we all like to think that our medicine is perfect, we have no idea what the majority of drugs are doing to our bodies). And there are alternates to allopathic care.......Both have essentially the same medical school training (except NDs get the herbal stuff, too). .........The biggest difference is that they look at the whole person and recommend changes in your life style and preventative medicine.

You are either VERY gullible or VERY misinformed. Actually, it's more likely both.

 

[TriagePreMed]

Alternative Medicine should be added to evolutionary methods on how nature gets rid of those less fit.

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

You are either VERY gullible or VERY misinformed. Actually, it's more likely both.

And what are you qualifications to make that assessment? How have you learned about chiropractics or naturopathic doctors (not naturopaths, which are different)? It seems pretty common knowledge that lower back pain can be managed through chiropractic means... why go though the risks of surgery or constant medication if you can avoid them?

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

You are either VERY gullible or VERY misinformed. Actually, it's more likely both.

Furthermore, instead of calling me gullible and misinformed, why not tell me why? Why not disprove my comments?

 

[Nymphicus]

I volunteer at a place that has both Naturopathic Doctors and Allopathic Doctors. Both have essentially the same medical school training (except NDs get the herbal stuff, too).

You do it for us. 🙁

 

[Law2Doc]

I would also say that it really depends on the type of CAM. If you have lower back pain, why not see a chiropractor BEFORE you go thorugh surgery or put drugs into your body (becasue while we all like to think that our medicine is perfect, we have no idea what the majority of drugs are doing to our bodies)... 🙂.

simple. Because not all lower back pain is benign or something that won't get worse or kill you without early intervention, and so if your first stop is not a medical doctor, you can be wasting precious time that significantly changes your prognosis. Most oncologists know a patient or two who died because their first stop was a chiropractor or alternative medicine person rather than an MD, and diagnosis was delayed for too long a time to save them. As for not knowing what drugs do, I think you have to realize that Conventional medicine requires FDA testing and clinical trials on it's meds. The supplement/herbalists industry doesn't. So for the latter, you have absolutely no idea what the substances do, if anything, but with the former, you have at least some handle. No drugs are totally benign, and all have side effects, often interactions with other things, so you should never ever be taking meds or supplements that aren't FDA approved unless you are in a well documented clinical trial. The majority of drugs we actually do have. Pretty good sense of what they do to our bodies. The majority of herbs and supplements not so much. Because they don't require the same FDA approval, no one has bothered to investigate the science.

And no NDs don't have essentially the same training as MD/DOs.

 

[Law2Doc]

... It seems pretty common knowledge that lower back pain can be managed through chiropractic means... why go though the risks of surgery or constant medication if you can avoid them?

um no. See my prior post. Lower back pain isn't a diagnosis, it's a symptom, and a very nonspecific one. If the cause is benign, then sure, a chiropractor probably won't make it any worse, and perhaps can make it feel better. If the cause is not benign, you had better not dally at the chiropractor's, because he may or may not have the appropriate insight to recognize that this is a serious medical condition requiring a barrage of imaging studies, and maybe surgery, meds etc. You are putting yourself at big risk when hoping that non physicians are going to make accurate MEDICAL diagnoses. so your first stop should always be a doctor, and if he says it's nothing he can help you with then sure, try something else. The problem is the public is not informed enough to appreciate that this person in a white coat shouldn't be their first stop, and chiropractors, NDs, alternative medicine folks advertise that they can help conditions in wats that may mislead the public into thinking this is an appropriate fist stop. Clearly from your posts, you are an example of someone who has been duped in this way.

 

[octupus]

It is neither an alternative nor is it medicine. But the public doesn't know any better and many many people (probably the majority who see alternative medicine folks) seek out these alternatives instead of seeing a real doctor.

agreed.

And it often results in not getting the treatment that could help them in a timely fashion, or getting supplements that are actually contradicted for their condition, etc.

Often? How can you know that? What about all the other instances where alternative treatment did work, especially for things like musculoskeletal pain, or stress-related illnesses. IMO, there isn't anything wrong with seeking alternatives before they pump their bodies with all sorts of pills. And no, I'm not saying that patients shouldn't seek treatment from a traditional doctor in a timely manner.

I would also say that it really depends on the type of CAM. If you have lower back pain, why not see a chiropractor BEFORE you go thorugh surgery or put drugs into your body (becasue while we all like to think that our medicine is perfect, we have no idea what the majority of drugs are doing to our bodies). And there are alternates to allopathic care. I volunteer at a place that has both Naturopathic Doctors and Allopathic Doctors. Both have essentially the same medical school training (except NDs get the herbal stuff, too). And actually, a lot of the professors at the MD school here in Oregon teach at the ND school as well. Anyway, I've spoken with a lot of the NDs and they still think that if you have cancer, you need to be seeing an oncologist. The biggest difference is that they look at the whole person and recommend changes in your life style and preventative medicine. For example, if you are showing signs that you might get diabetes, they will put you on some naturopatchi regiments at a stage when MDs would turn you away because you aren't sick enough yet. However, if you come in with 200/120 BP, they aren't goign to go for the herbs but will put you on a normal MD drug because "all of the naturopathic BP med combined will amount to just one MD BP med" (one of the NDs where I volunteer).

Furthermore, there is a way to test acupuncture and a trauma surgeon that I shadow is actually researching acupuncture's use as a sedative 🙂.

👍 you pretty said what I wanted to say. In the end, it's the informed patient's choice.

 

[Starlightembers]

this is a false statement, and is the problem most physicians have with alternative medicine. It is neither an alternative nor is it medicine. But the public doesn't know any better and many many people (probably the majority who see alternative medicine folks) seek out these alternatives instead of seeing a real doctor. And it often results in not getting the treatment that could help them in a timely fashion, or getting supplements that are actually contradicted for their condition, etc. The public doesn't get that these are not doctors, certainly have not exhausted conventional options at this juncture, and that there is often little to no evidence based science behind their practices. Basically the public gets duped. You will be surprised how many patients show up having not seen a real doctor in years, trying to have a serious, potentially curable condition dealt with by herbalists. If it were just a handful of patients for whom conventional options were exhausted that would be fine, but there is no money in that. So these guys market themselves for a whole host of ailments for which there are conventional treatments the patients really ought to be treated. They are preying on people who don't really understand that there's a difference between science and wives tales.

I agree with this in most circumstances; however, I would caution you not to stereotype all CAM practitioners and patients. Though I (obviously, I am here) support western, evidence based medicine and hold the opinion that more studies need to be done on these treatments, I also come from a family that frequently uses these types of treatments. They only use them in conjunction with Western medicine, they ensure that their physicians are fully informed (and in support of its use) and, for more 'major' (ex, inability to carry a pregnancy to term) health issues, only utilize it after all other options have been exhausted. My mother was unable to have a kid -- despite 8+ miscarriages and every fertility treatment under the sun -- until she sought out and was treated by an Eastern practitioner in addition to treatment given by her OB.

Once again, I agree that more studies need to be done and that an actual physician (as in, not an ND) needs to be involved at every step; but don't knock the whole thing entirely.

 

[gehr4733]

Seems to me alternative medicine is many ways marketing. If alternative supplements truly made a proven clinical difference wouldn't allopathic and osteopathic docs use them? Consumers are likely practicing a good old fashioned case of confirmation bias. I would say that the establishment could use some work on increasing preventive medicine, however I would say it's a mulfactorial problem, stemming from issues of compliance, malpractice, reimbursement etc...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

 

[NatrixCaelicola]

simple. Because not all lower back pain is benign or something that won't get worse or kill you without early intervention, and so if your first stop is not a medical doctor, you can be wasting precious time that significantly changes your prognosis. Most oncologists know a patient or two who died because their first stop was a chiropractor or alternative medicine person rather than an MD, and diagnosis was delayed for too long a time to save them. As for not knowing what drugs do, I think you have to realize that Conventional medicine requires FDA testing and clinical trials on it's meds. The supplement/herbalists industry doesn't. So for the latter, you have absolutely no idea what the substances do, if anything, but with the former, you have at least some handle. No drugs are totally benign, and all have side effects, often interactions with other things, so you should never ever be taking meds or supplements that aren't FDA approved unless you are in a well documented clinical trial. The majority of drugs we actually do have. Pretty good sense of what they do to our bodies. The majority of herbs and supplements not so much. Because they don't require the same FDA approval, no one has bothered to investigate the science.

And no NDs don't have essentially the same training as MD/DOs.

I will agree with you that they should be seen in conjunction with a traditional doctor (despite many NDs practicing integrative approaches that should theoretically pass a patient off to an appropriate specialist if need be). But the FDA isn't perfect. One example of how little we know about drug interactions is a neurobiology professor of mine (pretty accomplished, knows his **** about the brain) who would not put his son on ADHD med for any reason because as he said (summarized) "there are multiple parts of the brain in which these drugs interact, we only know what one of them is responsible for and given the importance of the brain, I'm not putting my son on a treatment like that." So I guess what I'm saying is if you go to your doctor and they find out that your lower back pain is just some inflamed disc or other relatively benign condition, then using a CAM is fine.

and "pretty good sense" is not complete knowledge by any chance.

Seems to me alternative medicine is many ways marketing. If alternative supplements truly made a proven clinical difference wouldn't allopathic and osteopathic docs use them? Consumers are likely practicing a good old fashioned case of confirmation bias. I would say that the establishment could use some work on increasing preventive medicine, however I would say it's a mulfactorial problem, stemming from issues of compliance, malpractice, reimbursement etc...

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk

Allopaths do use some alternative treatments... many now will prescribe chiropractics and acupuncture. Not to mention arnica was taken from the herbal realm. Also, there was a recent issue that some herbal remedy that was dirt cheap (begins with a "c" but I can't remember the name) was being patented by the FDA and going to be sold for a LOT more than before.

 

[BluegrassDancin]

What are the ethical dilemmas surrounding alternative medicine? I am assuming it encompasses acupuncture, herbal medicine, etc.

The two NDs I know sell their patients all the supplements and herbal remedies they prescribe for them. That seems like it could be an ethical dilemma to me...

 

[candav]

The point the other poster was making is that practitioners of evidence-based medicine have a responsibility to understand and prescribe (primarily) treatments that meet a certain standard of scientific credibility. Holding us to that standard allows patients to trust that their physicians are up-to-date with the relevant peer-reviewed data and are in the best possible position to make informed decisions. When we offer advice or prescribe a treatment, our patients should be able to trust that that treatment is legit as can be, usually meaning that it has passed rigorous clinical trials.

You're right, and the point I was trying to make is that the current methods of scientific evidence (in the form of RCTs) cannot be applied to many alternative therapies. A recurring theme in this thread is the notion that treatments shouldn't be offered unless they're "proven" -- I don't dispute this, but I wonder if our rather narrow view of what proof constitutes (i.e. clinical trials) limits the kinds of treatments that can be approved.

Also, I wonder if the theory that allopathic physicians will incorporate "proven" alternative treatments into their practice holds, considering there are certain alternative treatments that have shown efficacy and safety in clinical trials, yet have not gained mainstream acceptance. (See St. John's wort for depression, as one example.)

 

[Law2Doc]

...

and "pretty good sense" is not complete knowledge by any chance.

....

a "pretty good sense" of what a med does is a whole lot better than having no f-ing clue what a med does. The alternative docs have no clue because nobody ever did the study. In evidence based allopathic medicine multiple studies are done, both to show something is safe, and effective. That's science. The supplement/ herbal route is not. And your argument that some herbal remedies have later been adopted by allopathic medicine totally misses the point. These are adopted AFTER evidence based studies are performed, and after they meet FDA standards. But at that point they aren't alternative medicine at all, they are just medicine. until that point, however, they shouldn't be used, and nobody has any reasonable basis treating medical conditions with them in lieu of an actual medical treatment.

 

[sliceofbread136]

There was an excellent Seinfeld episode on this subject.

 

[Morzh]

a "pretty good sense" of what a med does is a whole lot better than having no f-ing clue what a med does. The alternative docs have no clue because nobody ever did the study. In evidence based allopathic medicine multiple studies are done, both to show something is safe, and effective. That's science. The supplement/ herbal route is not. And your argument that some herbal remedies have later been adopted by allopathic medicine totally misses the point. These are adopted AFTER evidence based studies are performed, and after they meet FDA standards. But at that point they aren't alternative medicine at all, they are just medicine. until that point, however, they shouldn't be used, and nobody has any reasonable basis treating medical conditions with them in lieu of an actual medical treatment.

I think that's the critical phrase.

Physicians do not have a responsibility to support unproven treatments. In fact they probably have a responsibility not to openly support them, at least without prefacing it with something like: "What you're asking about is an alternative thing that has not been proven by the modern scientific method to be effective. However, since there is no reason to believe it unsafe I am not opposed to you pursuing such options as long as you keep me informed about what treatments you are receiving and always ask me first before trying something new." That maintains a relationship of trust and honest communication.

 

[IMSingular]

If some thing has been observed 1000 times it is modern scientific method. There may not be explaination of chemical process yet but if it observed repeatedly it is scientific neverthless; that is called experimental investigation in among scientist.

 

[Long Way to Go]

This has been touched upon already, but it sums up the whole "dilemma" in two lines:

"What do you call alternative medicine that works?"

"Medicine."

 

[mmmcdowe]

The ethical implications of alternative medicine are very simple to those revolving around asking other people to do your homework for you and then presenting it as your own honest to God truth. Okay, maybe they aren't that similar in a lot of respects, but this sounds an awful lot like a HW question.

 

[nuance]

I can imagine a few ethical dilemmas surrounding alternative medicine & pediatrics.

If you were a pediatrician and a family brought their child in with huge bruises all over his/her body, but said those bruises were from cupping ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fire_cupping ), how would you react? what if you could tell that the child was in pain following a cupping procedure? It gets complicated when your patient is a child because it could potentially be viewed as child abuse.

I would suggest reading the book The Spirit Catches You and You Fall Down because it is all about the balance of alternative medicine, different cultures, and modern allopathic medicine.

 

[phltz]

Physicians do not have a responsibility to support unproven treatments. In fact they probably have a responsibility not to openly support them, at least without prefacing it with something like: "What you're asking about is an alternative thing that has not been proven by the modern scientific method to be effective. However, since there is no reason to believe it unsafe I am not opposed to you pursuing such options as long as you keep me informed about what treatments you are receiving and always ask me first before trying something new." That maintains a relationship of trust and honest communication.

The problem with your position is that "complementary and alternative medicine" or whatever people call it encompasses a _huge_ range of things. There's a huge range of how invasive their treatments are and what claims are made about them. Massage therapy is often considered part of complementary medicine. Do you consider that it's irresponsible of a doctor to tell a patient with a serious disease with complicated, difficult treatment and an uncertain outcome, "You seem like the stress from all of this is really getting to you. It might be worth going getting a massage, and taking a bit of time to relax and treat yourself to something nice." Does he need to have scientific evidence that this will change the patient's outcomes?

How about a kid with a cold. Can the doctor recommend that his mom make him some chicken soup? Does there need to be a randomized controlled study regarding the efficacy and safety of chicken soup before this is an acceptable recommendation?

There's a lot of dangerous quackery out there, sure. I don't like it any more than you do. But I think that in your rush to distance what mainstream medicine does from the bunk, you've misunderstood the practice of mainstream medicine. Doctors tell their patients stuff all the time that has no rigorous scientific evidence. Hell, much of the time, it'd be possible to dig up evidence that what they're doing is actually harmful. What doctors do falls far short of the platonic ideal of scientific, evidence based medicine that you seem to think is what actually goes on.

 

[thesauce]

I will agree with you that they should be seen in conjunction with a traditional doctor (despite many NDs practicing integrative approaches that should theoretically pass a patient off to an appropriate specialist if need be). But the FDA isn't perfect. One example of how little we know about drug interactions is a neurobiology professor of mine (pretty accomplished, knows his **** about the brain) who would not put his son on ADHD med for any reason because as he said (summarized) "there are multiple parts of the brain in which these drugs interact, we only know what one of them is responsible for and given the importance of the brain, I'm not putting my son on a treatment like that." So I guess what I'm saying is if you go to your doctor and they find out that your lower back pain is just some inflamed disc or other relatively benign condition, then using a CAM is fine.

and "pretty good sense" is not complete knowledge by any chance.

This is probably your weakest argument. Using the opinion of one person as a basis to write off all randomized control trials involving hundreds or thousands of patients is not a strong position. We do these trials because the results are so often NOT intuitive.

Your professor's logic in this case is completely backwards. You come up with a theory and design a trials based on this theory to prove it. You don't use your theory to discount a trial after it has been performed.

 

[tantacles]

If some thing has been observed 1000 times it is modern scientific method. There may not be explaination of chemical process yet but if it observed repeatedly it is scientific neverthless; that is called experimental investigation in among scientist.

Most hilarious post I've seen in a while. Thanks for the laugh.

 

[Sephiroth]

Most hilarious post I've seen in a while. Thanks for the laugh.

Yeah, who is this guy, really?

And for those who've said that alternative treatments cannot be put under the same type of experimentation, why not? They've done it with accupuncture, using what they call "sham acupuncture" (needles at random positions) and pin poking as the control, with mixed results.

 

[theseeker4]

If some thing has been observed 1000 times it is modern scientific method. There may not be explaination of chemical process yet but if it observed repeatedly it is scientific neverthless; that is called experimental investigation in among scientist.

The problem with this is I am sure you can find a thousand people who 'testify' that faith healing works. Doesn't mean it is scientifically supported in any way, shape or form. There is a difference between simple observations, even a long list of them, and actual controlled studies.

 

[IMSingular]

The problem with this is I am sure you can find a thousand people who 'testify' that faith healing works. Doesn't mean it is scientifically supported in any way, shape or form. There is a difference between simple observations, even a long list of them, and actual controlled studies.

By observed I mean observed by independent observer rather than the person healed or there is conflict of interest; I think that is double bind test. I would put Amazing Randy in charge of experiment to really trust the results. You need a talent of magician to debunk the trickery. I would have liked to be a magician! But I don't like to trick people.

In any case my point was there are some substances which seem to work well but there has been no chemical process analysis. Whenever I have minor tooth ache I put clove in between the teeth. It seems to work every time I do it. It also worked for my father from whom I got the trick and I think he got it from his father. There is a project for you to investigate!
If it was physics I would have investigated. I am not a good chemist.

 

[IMSingular]

Yeah, who is this guy, really?

Well. I am a father of would be MD who has been admitted to the class of 2016. Here I am just trying to learn how his types think.

 

[scarshapedstar]

Steve Jobs would probably be alive today if it weren't for "alternative medicine". 🙁

 

[IMSingular]

Steve Jobs would probably be alive today if it weren't for "alternative medicine". 🙁

agreed.