MD Programs that focus on holistic medicine?

[wiki23]

I only applied to MD Programs, but am also interested in holistic and natural approaches to medicine. Does anyone know of MD programs that integrate alternative approaches to healing into the curriculum?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[8744]

I only applied to MD Programs, but am also interested in holistic and natural approaches to medicine. Does anyone know of MD programs that integrate alternative approaches to healing into the curriculum?

Medicine, whether allopathic or osteopathic, is all "holistic" as it teaches you to look at the patient as a whole. That's why a comprehensive Review of Systems and Physical Exam is so important. And since we deal with living human beings who we treat surigically or with medicine is it all natural.

I suspect by "holistic" and "natural" you mean the usual quackery and snake oil.

 

[PeripateticMD]

I only applied to MD Programs, but am also interested in holistic and natural approaches to medicine. Does anyone know of MD programs that integrate alternative approaches to healing into the curriculum?

I'm pretty sure that when i was at AECOM and UCSF that both had special emphasis programs on alternative medicine... maybe Vandy too? Those are the ones that come to mind. Although I didn't interview at Tulane, I'm pretty sure they have it too (they love quackery - but who doesn't?).

 

[wiki23]

Yeah, what I really want to do is rub herbs over patients and sing voodoo songs so that the devil is released from their body.

 

[koennen]

Yeah, what I really want to do is rub herbs over patients and sing voodoo songs so that the devil is released from their body.

Yes, and don't forget the healing power of eye of newt and toe of frog.

 

[cubbbie]

GW and Georgetown both brag about their integration of the naturopathic stuff into the curriculum ...

I think you can pick it as an area of concentration at GW.

 

[alwaysaangel]

GW and Georgetown both brag about their integration of the naturopathic stuff into the curriculum ...

I think you can pick it as an area of concentration at GW.

Oh wow, I must have blocked that out, I don't remember that one. I hate that type of stuff. Especially the current fad of "homeopathics." If it works - get it FDA approved, if it doesn't stop ripping people off (*cough* ZICAM *cough*)

My boyfriend made me get some stuff his cousin recommended for his hives. So in curiosity I looked up what might help a couple of my problems. Lo and behold it was the same thing, it cures hives, colds, yeast infections, allergies, sneezing, hair loss, UTIs, acne, anxiety, poor public speaking, heck it even cures world hunger.

(sorry way off-topic rant)

 

[deleted36260]

If it alternative medicine worked, it'd be called MEDICINE

Of course, tons of things that we use are natural and due to this science should be taking a role in testing these remedies. What works? What doesn't? Can it be synthesized cheaper or made better? However, anyone who assumes natural is synonymous with better, also has a piss poor understanding of chemistry,

 

[Haemulon]

I hate that type of stuff. Especially the current fad of "homeopathics." If it works - get it FDA approved, if it doesn't stop ripping people off

Exactly! Unfortunately, health foods and herbal supplements are not subject to FDA approval and were explicitly excluded from the legislation that would have required it. The whole principle of homeopathy is basically that like treats like. Many of the solutions contain ingrediants that are so diluted that in many cases they are pure water. Homeopathists hypothesize that the water maintains a "memory" of the substance that was formerly in it and therefore the water has altered properties that may have physiological leffects. Wonder why they lobbied to have it excluded from FDA review?

If it alternative medicine worked, it'd be called MEDICINE

Exactly. Of course there are probably treatments that are so far inconclusive or which may be effective but just havn't had the appropriate trails conducted yet, but why would someone want to use a treatment that hasn't been thoroughly investigated? I suppose if desparate though, i'd probably try anything too, which is why people need protection from quacks and snake oil salesman.


All this being said, I do think that it would be valuable to learn about alternative therepies from the point of view of being able to speak intelligently about them if your patients should bring it up. Otherwise, how can we better convince them of why they need real treatments? My appologies to naturopaths and other alternative medicine advocates. To each his own, but I am a firm believer in evidence-based medicine.

 

[alwaysaangel]

Exactly! Unfortunately, health foods and herbal supplements are not subject to FDA approval and were explicitly excluded fromthe legislation that would have required it. The whole principle of homeopathy is basically that like treats like. Many of the solutions contain ingrediants that are so diluted that in many cases they are pure water. Homeopathists hypothesize that the water maintains a "memory" of the substance that was in it and therefore has altered properties that may have physiologica leffects. Wonder why they lobbied to have it excluded from FDA review.

Good grief! Didn't know that.

When my bf takes his he says he can't touch it (his cousin who is a homeopath told him that) - apparently it screws up the efficacy. I was cracking up.

 

[Haemulon]

Good grief! Didn't know that.

When my bf takes his he says he can't touch it (his cousin who is a homeopath told him that) - apparently it screws up the efficacy. I was cracking up.

Certain homeopathic remedies actually are based on poisons that have been completely diluted out (thus relying on the "memory" thing") with the assumption that a particular toxin that attacks the body in a certain general way will cure a disease or condition that similarly effects the body in a generally similar way (thus the like treats like philosophy).

It amazes me how some groups of people will cling to beliefs with an almost religious zealotry without requiring concrete and conclusive evidence. There are certain techniques that are accepted by many people of certain groups that I dare not mention here, mainly because I left my flame jacket at home. But nevertheless it is good for everyone to keep in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to prove them. Modern science and medicine may not be perfect, and it certainly does not have all of the answers, but the empiral philosophy that is their foundation is the most logically sound approach to understanding our physiologies and the nature of and treatment for our pathologies.

Whew! Glad I got that off my chest

 

[amathew]

If it alternative medicine worked, it'd be called MEDICINE

Of course, tons of things that we use are natural and due to this science should be taking a role in testing these remedies. What works? What doesn't? Can it be synthesized cheaper or made better? However, anyone who assumes natural is synonymous with better, also has a piss poor understanding of chemistry,

I disagree. Many of the "alternative" medicine methods were around before the 'traditional' or which we now refer to as the allopathic medicine. Acupuncture, homeopathy - these have been practiced for centuries now, in different regions of the world. However, since it is just becoming more mainstream, the traditional medical world looks as it as an alternative to the medicine practiced currently.

Also, if i was to pick between two forms of medicine - one natural and other synthetic - I am sure I would choose the natural over the synthetic form since there are less maladies in natural products. Therefore, in a sense you could say natural is better.

 

[Tired]

I only applied to MD Programs, but am also interested in holistic and natural approaches to medicine. Does anyone know of MD programs that integrate alternative approaches to healing into the curriculum?

One of the great scams of all time.

"Holistic" and "natural approaches" to medicine are (with a select few exceptions) incompatible with Osteopathic/Allopathic medicine. If you feel the need to use unproven and sometimes dangerous medications on your patients, you don't need the MD or DO after your name. And if you feel like you would be happy recommending non-FDA approved drugs with no evidence that they work, you might be happier with a career as a con artist.

Hippie go home.

 

[TakingBakSunday]

Another great scene from Futurama:

Scientist: I've got a degree in homeopathic medicine!
Civil Defense Van: You've got a degree in baloney!
*Sprays man with water cannon

 

[8744]

I disagree. Many of the "alternative" medicine methods were around before the 'traditional' or which we now refer to as the allopathic medicine. Acupuncture, homeopathy - these have been practiced for centuries now, in different regions of the world. However, since it is just becoming more mainstream, the traditional medical world looks as it as an alternative to the medicine practiced currently.

Also, if i was to pick between two forms of medicine - one natural and other synthetic - I am sure I would choose the natural over the synthetic form since there are less maladies in natural products. Therefore, in a sense you could say natural is better.

Aaaarrgggh. I'm sure you're a very intelligent girl but why on earth would you say (and believe) something like this? What do you think has less side-effects and is safer when taken for it's intended purpose? A medicine produced in a modern factory with strict quality controls or some traditional potion brewed in your local witch-doctor's bathtub with all of the tight quality control you might find in an Arkansas meth lab?

"Natural" is a meaningless term except for marketing.

Hey, the ancients believed all sorts of things about medicine that are just not true. And people used to drop like flies, even with all of that traditional medicine, from things that we don't even get excited about anymore.

Come on now. It's good to be open-minded but not to the extent that your brains fall out.

 

[8744]

I also have to say that I am suprised at how credulous a lot of you are. I thought the younger generation were supposed to be skeptical.

 

[Tired]

I also have to say that I am suprised at how credulous a lot of you are. I thought the younger generation were supposed to be skeptical.

C'mon. Weight in. This is fun.

We're about four posts away from telling stories about people we've seen die because they relied on Holistic Medicine instead of getting real treatment.

 

[8744]

Yeah, what I really want to do is rub herbs over patients and sing voodoo songs so that the devil is released from their body.

Well, you laugh but this could pretty accurately describe aromatherapy or moxibustion, both of which are very popular CAM "modalities."

 

[8744]

And I want somebody to explain to me how "allopathic" medicine is not holistic.

 

[Depakote]

Also, if i was to pick between two forms of medicine - one natural and other synthetic - I am sure I would choose the natural over the synthetic form since there are less maladies in natural products. Therefore, in a sense you could say natural is better.

Couldn't Hemlock be considered all natural?

Just b/c it comes from the Earth doesn't mean it won't kill you.

 

[BananaShake]

I'm surprised and disappointed how scornful most of you are. The OP asked for schools that integrate natural and holistic approaches into the regular curriculum, not how to treat cancer with eye of dragon. I'll be the first to admit that when I'm sick, I head to the pharmacy, not my local witch doctor. But the attitudes and philosophies behind more natural approaches merit at least a general familiarity. For all of you skeptics- scientific studies have shown the power of things like faith (the placebo effect) and other methods like acupuncture and herbal remedies have been effective (for thousands of years, in some countries) as non-invasive healing techniques. I can provide dozens of links if you PM me. Or don't believe me- just do a medline search.

Obviously, this doesn't mean sacrificing traditional Western medicine for this. And there are a lot of quacks out there. But when done correctly, I think that alternative approaches to medicine can only enhance Western technology.

 

[nubbey24]

I disagree. Many of the "alternative" medicine methods were around before the 'traditional' or which we now refer to as the allopathic medicine. Acupuncture, homeopathy - these have been practiced for centuries now, in different regions of the world. However, since it is just becoming more mainstream, the traditional medical world looks as it as an alternative to the medicine practiced currently.

Also, if i was to pick between two forms of medicine - one natural and other synthetic - I am sure I would choose the natural over the synthetic form since there are less maladies in natural products. Therefore, in a sense you could say natural is better.

If you really feel this way, then why on earth are you entering allopathic medicine?

If you sincerely love snake oil, and want to get certified, go seek admisisons to one of those homeopathic or naturopathic schools. They encourage ignorance to proven medicine, will probably encourage weed smoking as a form of cleansing, and will admit you as long as you have a pulse.

Good luck with that philosophy.

 

[alwaysaangel]

Also, if i was to pick between two forms of medicine - one natural and other synthetic - I am sure I would choose the natural over the synthetic form since there are less maladies in natural products. Therefore, in a sense you could say natural is better.

Ok. Scenario:

You catch leprosy (still a disease - just not common)
You have two choices. You can take the natural medicine (it is a naturally occuring element) from the doctor who uses older techniques to cure the disease. Or you can take the modern synthetic medicine from a modern MD.

Which do you take????

Highlight below to see what happens to you.



If you chose the natural - you just took Mercury - you will likely go insane as you continue taking doses over the years. Your disease won't improve.

If you chose the modern medicine you took a common antibiotic. You will be cured in a matter of months to years depending on the severity.


Still want the natural medicine?? Do you see why to blanketly say "Natural" is better than synthetic is stupid? Like panda said - natural means NOTHING except in marketing.

 

[Tired]

But the attitudes and philosophies behind more natural approaches merit at least a general familiarity.

No they don't. Allopathic/Osteopathic medicine is based on the principles of scientific validation, which almost zero "holistic" treatments have. Failure to conform to the requirements of evidence-based medicine makes "holistic" medicine outside our realm. The only reason we should be familiar with it is so that we can warn our patients away from it.

For all of you skeptics- scientific studies have shown the power of things like faith (the placebo effect)

The placebo effect doesn't mean it is effective. Medications that are no better than placebo are judged to not be effective. Studies have also shown the "placebo power" of the sugar pill. Will you be utilizing this powerful new treatment as well in your practice?

and other methods like acupuncture and herbal remedies have been effective (for thousands of years, in some countries) as non-invasive healing techniques.

I notice you decided not to use "studies have shown . . ." here. Good for you for at least being honest. Accupunture and most herbal remedies have been studied, and have not been found to be effective for anything (except for 2-3 studies that may show a weak effect on lower back pain).

Or don't believe me- just do a medline search.

Now you're just faking it. The studies validating CAM can be listed on a single page. Let's see: accupuncture for low back pain (maybe), garlic for heart disease (maybe, with potential adverse effects if the patient is using aspirin), and . . . oh wait, that's pretty much it.

 

[deleted36260]

Also, if i was to pick between two forms of medicine - one natural and other synthetic - I am sure I would choose the natural over the synthetic form since there are less maladies in natural products. Therefore, in a sense you could say natural is better.

Are you one of those people that think the carbon in a natural diamond is different than the carbon in a man made diamond???

Chemistry is chemistry is chemisrty. Synthesizing something doesn't mean anything if the product is the same compound!

Less maladies?! THIS is what I'm talking about. Natural doesn't mean anything other than "survived evolution long enough to be around still". That's it! Nothing more! Poison dart frogs are covered in a lovely natural serum, but I don't suggest you drink it.

 

[BananaShake]

No they don't. Allopathic/Osteopathic medicine is based on the principles of scientific validation, which almost zero "holistic" treatments have. Failure to conform to the requirements of evidence-based medicine makes "holistic" medicine outside our realm. The only reason we should be familiar with it is so that we can warn our patients away from it.

The placebo effect doesn't mean it is effective. Medications that are no better than placebo are judged to not be effective. Studies have also shown the "placebo power" of the sugar pill. Will you be utilizing this powerful new treatment as well in your practice?

I notice you decided not to use "studies have shown . . ." here. Good for you for at least being honest. Accupunture and most herbal remedies have been studied, and have not been found to be effective for anything (except for 2-3 studies that may show a weak effect on lower back pain).

Now you're just faking it. The studies validating CAM can be listed on a single page. Let's see: accupuncture for low back pain (maybe), garlic for heart disease (maybe, with potential adverse effects if the patient is using aspirin), and . . . oh wait, that's pretty much it.

Nonsense. I don't want this to degenerate into a personal attack but I really don't like your attitude. 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)? 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.

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 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. If you read my post more closely, you would note that I said this is all in ADDITION to Western medicine. Certainly, I'm not going to dismiss new technology in favor of old legends. The fact of the matter is, there IS increasingly more research being done on what was traditionally considered unprovable. 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.

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.

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.

 

[8744]

I'm surprised and disappointed how scornful most of you are. The OP asked for schools that integrate natural and holistic approaches into the regular curriculum, not how to treat cancer with eye of dragon. I'll be the first to admit that when I'm sick, I head to the pharmacy, not my local witch doctor. But the attitudes and philosophies behind more natural approaches merit at least a general familiarity. For all of you skeptics- scientific studies have shown the power of things like faith (the placebo effect) and other methods like acupuncture and herbal remedies have been effective (for thousands of years, in some countries) as non-invasive healing techniques. I can provide dozens of links if you PM me. Or don't believe me- just do a medline search.

Obviously, this doesn't mean sacrificing traditional Western medicine for this. And there are a lot of quacks out there. But when done correctly, I think that alternative approaches to medicine can only enhance Western technology.

So you would happily integrate faith healing, snake handling, and speaking n toungues into your practice? If not, why not?

 

[Depakote]

Poison dart frogs are covered in a lovely natural serum, but I don't suggest you drink it.

I dunno, that could make for a fun weekend...

 

[BananaShake]

So you would happily integrate faith healing, snake handling, and speaking n toungues into your practice? If not, why not?

I would happily integrate alternative medicines whose philosophies I agree with and have had some supporting evidence indicating their merit. Let's not go overboard here. There are many bogus alternative therapies out there, just as there have been many, many failed Western medicines (thalidomide, anyone?). You have to know how to discriminate.

I am not knowledgeable enough in many types of alternative medicine to recommend specifics to my patients comfortably. But I would highly encourage them to seek out complementary alternative therapy, provided that it doesn't have any negative effects when combined with my own.

 

[sunnyjohn]

The best "natural" medicine?

A decent diet and liberal amounts of exercise.

 

[Depakote]

I would happily integrate alternative medicines whose philosophies I agree with and have had some supporting evidence indicating their merit. Let's not go overboard here. There are many bogus alternative therapies out there, just as there have been many, many failed Western medicines (thalidomide, anyone?). You have to know how to discriminate.

I am not knowledgeable enough in many types of alternative medicine to recommend them to my patients comfortably. But I would highly encourage them to seek out complementary alternative therapy, provided it doesn't have any negative effects when combined with my own.

Thalidomide (with Dexamethasone) is still the standard of care for multiple myeloma... what were you trying to get at?

EDIT: Oh, just Wiki'd it... that's nasty stuff.

 

[Tired]

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."

 

[Haemulon]

I would happily integrate alternative medicines whose philosophies I agree with and have had some supporting evidence indicating their merit. Let's not go overboard here. There are many bogus alternative therapies out there, just as there have been many, many failed Western medicines (thalidomide, anyone?). You have to know how to discriminate.

I am not knowledgeable enough in many types of alternative medicine to recommend specifics to my patients comfortably. But I would highly encourage them to seek out complementary alternative therapy, provided that it doesn't have any negative effects when combined with my own.

The wonderfull thing about science is that it is self correcting. Thalidomide was effective, but it had that pesky side effect of deforming fetus's. This was revealed and it was discontinued in those circumstances in favor of safer treatments. For me, having "some supporting evidence" is not enough justification for me to offer a treatment to my patients as a standard of care, especially when also accompanied by some or a lot of counter evidence. I want to be a physician to practice evidence-based medicine, not treatment that is inconclusive at best and purely faith-based at worst. Patients are welcome to seek out alternative providers to fill their desires for this type of therepy because they certainly do not require a doctor for this. Why waste all of that expense paying highly trained and experienced licensed physicians to do voo-doo witch doctor stuff and herbal remedies that you can find in the self help setion of Barnes and Noble? Better yet, just phone a telephone psychic to work through one's problems instead of having to visit a psychiatrist? (Or perhaps just take mass amounts of vitamins and wait for the spaceship to come down?). Anyway, this is just my own opinion. I'm on the record as saying I won't practice voo-doo science/medicine.

 

[Tired]

I'm on the record as saying I won't practice voo-doo science/medicine.

I'll second that.

We should replace the Hippocratic Oath with this pledge. Especially since I can't exactly swear I will never "cut, even for the stone" or whatever that line is.

 

[nubbey24]

Of course you don't. Most people don't like it when others point out the blatant flaws in their arguments.



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?



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.



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 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.



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?



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?



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."

Wow Tired...I bet this person didn't expect this to happen when they listed these "Impressive" studies to back up their findings. Way to go, and thank you. Exellent post, and well said.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

I disagree. Many of the "alternative" medicine methods were around before the 'traditional' or which we now refer to as the allopathic medicine. Acupuncture, homeopathy - these have been practiced for centuries now, in different regions of the world. However, since it is just becoming more mainstream, the traditional medical world looks as it as an alternative to the medicine practiced currently.

Also, if i was to pick between two forms of medicine - one natural and other synthetic - I am sure I would choose the natural over the synthetic form since there are less maladies in natural products. Therefore, in a sense you could say natural is better.

So what's the holistic/homeopathic/alternative medicine therapy for cranial rectal inversion?

 

[twohearted]

So what's the holistic/homeopathic/alternative medicine therapy for cranial rectal inversion?

You rub crystals over the spot for a few hours and then colonics, duh.

 

[Instatewaiter]

Apparently you're not up to date on the latest acupuncture research either.

Actually the school I go to finally decided to look into the research on acupuncture. They were really surprised but what the found. The acupuncture research was so promising that they decided to reallocate the 174 million dollars for an ICU tower to acupuncture research. True story... hand to god.

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."

Yes I really can see how that is a problem. God forbid doctors find the problems and fix them. Why so quick doctors? Maybe wait another few months and let your patient suffer some more. Look how slow the natural medicines work. The 'maladies' in our modern medicine make it work too fast. Euhhh...bastards with their effective medicines and proof to back it up. Who do they think they are?

 

[BananaShake]

Alright let's break this down.

Of course you don't. Most people don't like it when others point out the blatant flaws in their arguments.

True, if that's what you were doing. Your line of reasoning is not entirely wrong. But your argument is weakened by your arrogance and your inexperience with the actual field. Have you even had any personal experience with alternative medicine? Oh, okay.

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?

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.

Hey, you know what's even funnier - when people argue the wrong thing. I'll concede there are probably misunderstandings on both sides- from your previous post you all but declare everything not isolated and encapsulated is evil. There may have been some miscommunication there. But you're wrong on both accounts. Not all medicines are natural- some are synthetic combinations created in laboratories, not all of them. And guess what? Not all of them work either.

My defense of the scarcity in alternative medicine trials is two-fold. One, it is very difficult to run certain things through Western clinical trials. For instance, how do you you measure how much faith someone has that they will heal? And have you ever even considered that some of the alternative therapies are only effective when treated in some sort of combination with each other? Case in point: anyone can kill cancer in a dish. It is isolated, easy to kill. But when you place it in the context of the human body, there are a million other factors to consider. Even the cancer behaves differently in different settings: one of the reason why angiogenesis and growth factors malignant tumors send out is such a hot field right now. Because so much of it depends on context, complicated chemotherapy concoctions have to be arranged to treat this cancer. Even then, it doesn't work. What a more holistic approach to medicine can do is take a bigger look at these other factors that may affect the disease.

Secondly, I'll give you that I didn't do much more than skim the abstracts of some of those papers. But you, in turn, are throwing in red herrings all over the place to miss the point. As I said- which you apparently missed- alternative medicine is a huge field. Not all of it is legitimate. Again, you have to be discriminating. I think one of the reasons that there isn't overwhelming evidence supporting the use of alternative medicine in conjunction with Western medicine is not because it is invalid but because few Western laboratories have the interest in studying it. Note that many of the CAM studies were done by non-Western laboratories. I'd venture that if more funding here in the US was allocated toward supporting alternative medical research to- for once and for all- study treatment regimens, there would be evidence supporting it. So perhaps instead of assuming that just because there are no studies done on it, it's invalid, YOU take the initiative. Go ahead. Prove us wrong.

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 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.

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?

Oh great! I guess that means you can prescribe medicines with NO side effects, that will work on EVERYONE, and work all the time, right? Right. Every medicine has it's side effects, other medicines that can't be taken at the same time, underlying health issues that may prevent its use. There are few studies that are done seriously on alternative medicine. Statistically, the smaller your sample data, the larger your margin of error. Again, there needs to be more study done on alternative therapy to be conclusive. Certainly I never advocated NO tests on it at all. I only said that a) some, not all alternative therapies are legitimate, b) some alternative therapies can be difficult to test and c) the reason why we don't have much data is because there haven't been many trials done on them yet. In effect, working without evidence to the contrary you're speculating just as much as the people out there doing rain dances and praying to the fertility gods because you have no proof that certain alternative therapies DON'T work.

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?

I hope you're kidding. Hey your hospital must be amazing- apparently they successfully treat every illness in every person! By not treating the whole person, I mean that Western medicine sometimes doesn't take into consideration other factors that may be exacerbating an illness. Certainly things like medical histories - predisposal to certain diseases, and underlying illnesses may provide a partial picture. I am not defending silly superstitions that sometimes call themselves "alternative therapies." I am talking about legitimate treatment regimens that account for parts of the body that are no directly at the site of the illness. Like referred pain. Or mental factors. Psychiatry, for example, may help get to the bottom of some psychosomatic effects the mind has on the body. Off the top of my head, things like phantom limb pain and sympathetic pregnancy are two examples of mental conditions manifesting themselves in physical effects on the body. Thus, the philosophy is simply avoiding the "isolate and cut out" mentality of many medical specialties. But I bet you're one of those people who scoffs at psychiatry as a "soft" science, not real science because there aren't as many pretty statistics and graphs for you to look at, huh.

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."

So kind of you to help me out there. Hey, why don't we keep on making ad hominem attacks on an online forum! I'm sure your debate coach will love it. Or are you just mentally on the defensive for upcoming malpractice suits.

Perhaps you may not believe it, but I want to be civil. I am not a frizzy-haired, non-shaving artsy hippie (although no offense to those who are). I have faith in the logic and scientific inductive/deductive system we cling to so much. But I do think that there is some possibility of alternative medicine completing an incomplete picture. Whether we can't measure it, or we just don't have the right tools- that's for other people to decide. But you might learn more about it before your scoff it off as New-Age witchery.

 

[8744]

I would happily integrate alternative medicines whose philosophies I agree with and have had some supporting evidence indicating their merit. Let's not go overboard here. There are many bogus alternative therapies out there, just as there have been many, many failed Western medicines (thalidomide, anyone?). You have to know how to discriminate.

I am not knowledgeable enough in many types of alternative medicine to recommend specifics to my patients comfortably. But I would highly encourage them to seek out complementary alternative therapy, provided that it doesn't have any negative effects when combined with my own.

So you only advocate the placebo effect when it is some hip and cool Eastern mystical thing but totally discount it if it arises from the mysterious and inscrutable trailer parks of the West? Why do you disagree with the philosophy of speaking in toungues?

See my point? The placebo card is the last refuge of CAM scoundrels. If all else fails they will throw it down as a debate-stopping tool. Don't you know that adminstering placebos to your patients is unethical? What's the difference between homeopathy and a sugar pill?

Nothin'. Except a sugar pill costs about three cents.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

All this being said, I do think that it would be valuable to learn about alternative therepies from the point of view of being able to speak intelligently about them if your patients should bring it up

And to treat the toxidromes they will present with when they OD on whatever they believe will cure them.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

You rub crystals over the spot for a few hours and then colonics, duh.

Right....I'll need to remember that for my witch doctor boards.

 

[ReachingTruth]

OP, I have to agree with most of the posters above regarding the holistic approach. Allopathic has to be holistic in order to effectively treat patients.

The word holistic is often used when talking about osteopathic schools, so did you want to know if there are allopathic schools that have additional courses about the osteopathic philosophy as well? (I don't know of any, but perhaps to steer this thread back towards your intended purpose? Although, I may be steering the wrong way with the word osteopathic. No intention to start a war).

 

[Tired]

Rather than go back to another long point-by-point, let me just lay down my objections to CAM in a very straightforward way, as a challenge to those oh-so-experienced folks who are defending this quackery.

But before I start, let me give you my last three encounters with CAM, since I have been accused of having no experience with it. Granted, I normally give no stock to these "experience" arguments, since I actively read the medical literature, and any ***** with a high school education should be able to see right through this nonsense. I have no personal experience with crack cocaine either, but have no problem warning people away from it.

- I had a 41yo mother diagnosed with breast cancer at Stage 1A, develop a 30cm fungating mass on her chest wall, from which she periodically bled severely enough to land in the ER. Her Naturopath had convinced her that chemotherapy/surgery would kill her, and prescribed a regimen called CanCell (look it up, long history). I got to comfort her sister and husband as they cried outside her room when the team told them her prognosis.

- I had a cyanotic 10yo asthmatic whose mother refused to use albuterol, because herbal teas were more "natural"

- I had a 7yo ADD patient who was expelled from school because her mother insisted that the imported "natural" remedy from South Africa was "safer" than Ritalin, and the child's behavior steadily escalated and became more disruptive

So that being said, here is what is wrong with CAM:

1) CAM is practiced by con men who prey on people's fear of unpleasant, but necessary, medical treatments. Kevin Trudeau writes a book called "Natural Cures *They* Don't Want You to Know About", and it sits on the NYTimes best seller list for months. Guess who *they* are (us, of course). They foster an antagonistic relationship between physicians and patients by accusing physicians of intentionally inflicting pain and withholding cures. And they do it for money. This is the depth of scum. For more information on this, browse the excellent website: quackwatch.org

2) CAM pretends to be "complementary" but is really presenting itself as an "alternative" to real medicine. Again, look at quackwatch. Naturopaths recognize that they have no science to support their claims, so instead they employ a strange quasi-religious imagery that claims their practices are somehow 'beyond' scientific scrutiny. More on this later. Few people go to priests anymore to heal their diseases, and no legitimate relgious practitioner would councel against seeking care from a physician (with a few legitimate exceptions). Yet CAM practitioners are more than happy to exploit people's religious sensibilities to make money.

3) CAM pretends that their methods/treatments cannot be evaluated scientifically, but this is blatantly false. There have been large numbers of studies done on CAM treatments, and almost uniformly they have been found to be either only mildly effective (accupuncture) or completely useless (Black Cohosh, Echinacea). Proponents of CAM make a variety of excuses for these failures, but the fact is that there is ample evidence now showing that the most popular CAM therapies are at best, minimally effective, and at worst, useless.

4) CAM still insists that there is no support in the scientific community for rigorous trials to evaluate their therapies. This is blatantly false. In addition to the multiple clinical trials mentioned above, the NIH now funds and staffs the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, which has a budget of over $120 million dollars every year. CAM therapies have been and continue to be exhaustively evaluated, and not a single one has been shown to be superior to "traditional" (ie - real) therapies.

5) CAM exploits a lack of regulation to make blatantly false statements about the safety and effectiveness of their treatments. By selling "nutritional supplements" they intentionally skirt traditional requirements that treatments be proven safe and effective. By inserting the "There Statements Have Nt Been Evaluated By the FDA" disclaimer, they are essentially free to say whatever they want. Even when they completely cross the line, they face little action more than a 'cease-and-desist' order. Were CAM therapies subject to FDA oversight, they would immediately shrivel on the vine.

6) Despite the frequent claim that CAM therapies are intended to be "complementary", all the above reasons and the CAM advertising demonstrate this to be a lie.

7) CAM throws around the word "natural", which is stupid and intentionally deceptive. Anything in a pill undergoes some sort of manufacturing process. And as pointed out earlier, most of our medications are derivatives of natural substances, also manufactured. The only real difference between "natural" treatments and FDA-approved pharmaceuticals is that our "natural" treatments do not bother isolate an active compound, do not undergo rigorous tests of purity and safety, and are not subject to any sort of oversight.

So there. Feel free to point out any factual errors I have made. And if you simply don't believe me, and don't feel like taking the time look up these things on your own, I will be happy to hunt down the examples and evidence for you.

No responsible medical professional should ever employ these therapies unless there is firm and convincing evidence that they work, and that they are safe. This is the standard we employ for pharmaceuticals, and there is no reason to lower the bar for CAM treatments.

 

[BananaShake]

So there. Feel free to point out any factual errors I have made.

Fair enough. First let's go through some logical fallacies. Comparing CAM to crack cocaine is a poor analogy at best- at worst a useless straw man. Under this line of reasoning, I guess if I read all the medical literature out there, I'll know everything medicine, right? Of course not. It takes first-hand experience. All you can make after reading the medical literature is an educated guess. That is your individual prerogative, and not a view you should impose upon your patients.

I never claimed to be a doctor with years and years of experience. I only made the modest claim that, in my small experience with medicine, I have found that certain philosophies and treatments that fall under the broad alternative medicine category, have worked. Some of these overlap with fields in osteopathic medicine and allopathic medicine (like psychiatry) as well. This is why I hate to call it "CAM," which carries a huge stigma in medicine and does tend to attract a lot of quacks- an unfortunate fact for some of the legitimate people who practice this. This is why, as I originally stated, the OP shouldn't be jeered at for embracing a wide variety of medical philosophies.

I am not a practitioner of alternative medicine, nor do I plan on becoming one. However, I have had personal experience with alternative medicine and several family/friends with successful first-hand experiences. I certainly will encourage my patients to keep an open mind to alternative types of therapy in conjunction with traditional medicine, or if traditional medicine fails.

Simply repeating over and over again that alternative medicine doesn't work because it is carried out incorrectly (and suffers from a lot of corruption) is another faulty argument. A patient cannot breathe so you intubate. Oops- it's an esophageal intubation, and the patient's airway closes. Does that mean intubation is an evil practice and should be avoided at all costs? Of course not. You just did it wrong. If quacks are out there taking advantage of frightened patients, they should be avoided at all costs. I have never said that alternative therapies should be used as the primary medical regimen instead of standard hospital care. Nor do I advocate the unregulated nature of it. I think it is a pity that the lack of regulation categorizes beneficial forms of alternative medicine with the crazy ones, implicating the former.

No responsible medical professional should ever employ these therapies unless there is firm and convincing evidence that they work, and that they are safe.

I couldn't agree more. As a physician, you are forced to make life-and-death decisions every day. The answer isn't always laid out for you, textbook-style, with a pretty little pro-con list that tells you what to do. YOU will have to make (possibly) controversial decisions -depending on your specialty- from everything on whether to use experimental chemotherapy regimens to exploratory surgery as a diagnostic tool. The risks for these are just as dangerous as with some alternative medicines. It is up to you to look at the experiments that have been done, and make an educated decision.

This is what I stand by in standard medicine and certainly for alternative medicine as well.

 

[BNSN]

Does anyone know of MD programs that integrate alternative approaches to healing into the curriculum?

I hope not.

 

[DropkickMurphy]

Black Cohosh

As opposed to blue cohosh; it's a little more than useless.....it's been proven to be out right harmful and yet it continues to be used by quite a few midwives to help "stimulate labor".

 

[future_dr_house]

why learn medicine at all, if the placebo effect works, then i'll just prescribe all my patients sugar pills, list them under different names for insurance and pocket all that extra money buy an island, send donald trump a nice wig, and then join the ranks of enron's executives on the list of the world's biggest scumbags

 

[KaraKiz]

speaking of alternative medicine, my older sister is so into alternative medicine that she won't allow my younger sister to buy acne medication from CVS - b/c its not "all natural." So my little sister is putting toothpaste on her face b/c she is 14 and doesnt have $25 to buy "all-natural organic" acne medication - but at least the toothpaste is Tom's all-natural herbal toothpaste.. poor kid.

best part: my older sister is married to an anaesthesiologist... oh the irony..

 

[Tired]

speaking of alternative medicine, my older sister is so into alternative medicine that she won't allow my younger sister to buy acne medication from CVS - b/c its not "all natural." So my little sister is putting toothpaste on her face b/c she is 14 and doesnt have $25 to buy "all-natural organic" acne medication - but at least the toothpaste is Tom's all-natural herbal toothpaste.. poor kid.

best part: my older sister is married to an anaesthesiologist... oh the irony..

Funny when it's acne anyway. Hopefully she'd be a little more reasonable if it were leukemia . . .

And man, if I were her husband, I would be flipping out.