Complementary and alternative care

[Pony46]

I am just wondering what peoples thoughts are on alternative care?

I have read many posts that are deeply adverse to any such care and have trouble understanding this form of, what I believe is, closed mindedness. While I recognize that physicians are responsible legally and morally for the health of their patients. What I dont understand is the summation of alternative care as quackery? Why is it so looked down upon to look outside of the box?

Is that not what scientists do? Do they not keep an open mind and try to understand the mechanism at hand which produces what is observed?

In regard to evidence based medicine.

I know that it is the best thing that we have but why is it preached as a creed? There are studies which provoke drugs to go on the market which are evidence based- Viox, bextra...which are now banned as they cause heart attack and stroke.
Or a even a study about education - the study was for Head Start it tested a large n and was to see if educating young underadvantaged children before school might up their performance in grade school. When the study did not provoke desired results in grade school this ripped funding away from Head Start. However, what was found is that those children who were in head start produced a higher # who ended up attending college, and then Head Start was given back its funding.

My point, evidence based can also be flawed. While it is the best thing that we have and good studies ought to be fully respected as they yield valuable and ethical info. I fear taking on the information of evidence based as a creed- those who dare think outside of the box beware!

I am having trouble with these thoughts, and I would love peoples opinions. I am not looking for people to flame me for wondering about these things.

So take my thoughts for what they are - thoughts. And respond as you see fit.

thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Bleurberry]

Duke's director of the Complementary Medicine center out there in NC was a big-time NIH researcher and is very wellr regarded. His take on it is refreshing - plain and simple, complementary medicine has heralded in a new age of a preventative focus. That means the physician works with the patient before the exponential curve of onset illness occurs. It's more cost effective, and patients are happier with the services. He also said the term "alternative" is counter-productive, because it's not a truly valid descriptor. We're not replacing western medicine with complementary medicine, we're augmenting it a bit is all. Nutrition, for example, is typically stressed more emphatically by complementary practitioners, but not dismissed by allopathic practitioners. Anyhow, the lines are increasingly blurred as complementary and allopathic medicine evolve through time.

And for what it's worth, I agree with this view. I think it's going to end up saving the patient and taxpayer alike a lot of grief at the end of the day. But I also have to agree that, in general, a treatment moves from "alternative" to "allopathic" when its demonstrated to work. But that isn't to infer the reverse - that everything named "allopathic" of "pharm" works for everyone, or that it doesn't sometimes do harm- and as far as I know no one is attempting to say otherwise (except those arguing against complementary in a positional and charged manner).

I am just wondering what peoples thoughts are on alternative care?

I have read many posts that are deeply adverse to any such care and have trouble understanding this form of, what I believe is, closed mindedness. While I recognize that physicians are responsible legally and morally for the health of their patients. What I dont understand is the summation of alternative care as quackery? Why is it so looked down upon to look outside of the box?

Is that not what scientists do? Do they not keep an open mind and try to understand the mechanism at hand which produces what is observed?

In regard to evidence based medicine.

I know that it is the best thing that we have but why is it preached as a creed? There are studies which provoke drugs to go on the market which are evidence based- Viox, bextra...which are now banned as they cause heart attack and stroke.
Or a even a study about education - the study was for head start it tested a large n and was to see if educating young underadvantaged children before school might up their performance in grade school. When the study did not provoke desired results in grade school this ripped funding away from head start. However what was found is that those children who were in head start produced a higher # who ended up attending college, and then head start was given back its funding.

My point evidence based can also be flawed. While it is the best thing that we have and good studies ought to be fully respected as they yield valuable and ethical info. I fear taking on the information of evidence based as a creed. Those who dare think outside of the box beware!

I am having trouble with these thoughts and I would love peoples opinions. I am not looking for people to flame me for wondering about these things.

So take my thoughts for what they are - thoughts. And respond as you see fit.

thanks

 

[Pony46]

Duke's director of the Complementary Medicine center out there in NC was a big-time NIH researcher and is very wellr regarded. His take on it is refreshing - plain and simple, complementary medicine has heralded in a new age of a preventative focus. That means the physician works with the patient before the exponential curve of onset illness occurs. It's more cost effective, and patients are happier with the services. He also said the term "alternative" is counter-productive, because it's not a truly valid descriptor. We're not replacing western medicine with complementary medicine, we're augmenting it a bit is all. Nutrition, for example, is typically stressed more emphatically by complementary practitioners, but not dismissed by allopathic practitioners. Anyhow, the lines are increasingly blurred as complementary and allopathic medicine evolve through time.

And for what it's worth, I agree with this view. I think it's going to end up saving the patient and taxpayer alike a lot of grief at the end of the day. But I also have to agree that, in general, a treatment moves from "alternative" to "allopathic" when its demonstrated to work. But that isn't to infer the reverse - that everything named "allopathic" of "pharm" works for everyone, or that it doesn't sometimes do harm- and as far as I know no one is attempting to say otherwise (except those arguing against complementary in a positional and charged manner).

Your balance and diplomatic articulation give me hope that I will encounter others like you and not the flaming and hating ones which I have encountered thus far.

Thank you.

 

[facetguy]

(Jaggs, please advise as to my response😉)