There's something to be said for homeopathy when there's nothing you can do

[softmed]

"**To all the sick people of facebook.. Don't waste your time or money going to the Urgent Care in xxxxxx... I went there 2x in 8 days to get told I have a viral infection and never got any kind of antibiotic... Luckily today my normal dr's office had an opening and I got told the same damn thing, that I have a viral infection and they gave me some medicine... NEVER will I go to Urgent care again!**"

I think it would be tempting if an otherwise healthy patient came into my office with a nasty cold and demanded antibiotics. There's something to be said for water pills.*

*By water pills I mean homeopathy.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[MSSM2013]

this could be a cultural thing. Chinese doctors give out antivirals and antibiotics for cold to prevent complications like pneumnia

 

[spyderracing32]

I think it would be tempting if an otherwise healthy patient came into my office with a nasty cold and demanded antibiotics. There's something to be said for water pills.

Water pills != placebo, unless of course you meant water pill and are trying to off an ignorant patient, in which case... patience and tolerance my friend. All you can do is diagnose, treat (if necessary), and educate.

 

[Compass]

The doctor may have given some sort of symptom-suppressing medicine. Who is to judge?

 

[softmed]

Water pills != placebo, unless of course you meant water pill and are trying to off an ignorant patient, in which case... patience and tolerance my friend. All you can do is diagnose, treat (if necessary), and educate.

I meant that homeopathy is water

 

[caseofthemndays]

Oh, ha, nevermind I get it.

 

[cbear]

Check out the science based medicine blog at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/

for anyone curious about homeopathy or looking for ammunition to refute Supplementary Complementary and Alternative Medicine ie SCAM.

Also listen to the QuackCast podcast on iTunes by Mark Crislip, a physician who is very passionate about evidence based medicine. The guy is super funny. Everybody in my lab loves listening to the QuackCast while getting our science on.

 

[apumic]

Water pills != placebo, unless of course you meant water pill and are trying to off an ignorant patient, in which case... patience and tolerance my friend. All you can do is diagnose, treat (if necessary), and educate.

If you're telling the pt that these "water pills" are going to help them then yes they are a placebo. Homeopathic remedies are essentially an entire industry built on placebo effects. The whole idea is to dilute the proposed active ingredient until it is no longer there for all practical purposes (i.e., dilutions of 1:10^1 to 1:10^400). In terms of a direct medical benefit, homeopathy is obviously quack "medicine."

Even so there is actually some value to homeopathy. Despite the fact that its actual theoretical basis is extremely flawed, the fact that it relies upon placebo effects is its redemption. Placebo effects are actually very powerful and should probably be used in medicine far more than they are. Experiments have shown that 50-75% of the effect of many drugs (e.g., pain meds, psychotropics, etc.) can be attributed to the patient's belief that the drug works. It has even been shown that the effects of powerful drugs such as morphine are greatly reduced when a pt is unaware of the administration of said drug (i.e., is told s/he is only receiving saline in a clinical trial) and that people will tend to develop whatever side effects we indicate may occur (i.e., the nocebo effect). When it comes to nonspecific symptoms (and one can rule out more serious complications, illnesses, etc.), this means it's probably worthwhile to give a sugar pill instead of an actual drug since the sugar pill will appease the pt w/o actually causing positive or negative side effects.

 

[Compass]

Do we define acupuncture as a scam? Because if we do, I must object...

 

[softmed]

Do we define acupuncture as a scam? Because if we do, I must object...

It depends on what you're talking about. Are you saying the actual ancient "science" behind acupuncture is valid? Are you saying that poking needles in people elicits some kind of physiologic response? Are you saying it's a placebo?

Overall the evidence is very ambiguous (mostly due to the inability for anyone to agree on how to properly test the claims of acupuncture). There's a very strong placebo effect in the adequately designed studies. There's no evidence to support the idea of traditional Chinese acupuncture.

 

[45408]

Do we define acupuncture as a scam? Because if we do, I must object...

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=733

Great stuff. There's been good studies recently that show that "real" acupuncture is no more effective than sham acupuncture (poking people in random places, or not even putting the needle into the skin).

 

[FluffyRabbit]

The part I don't like about homeopathy is that it often prevents/discourages people from actually getting the medical attention they need. Sure, the placebo effect is nice, but sometimes it's not enough.

I'm definitely preaching to the choir here though...

 

[Compass]

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=733

Great stuff. There's been good studies recently that show that "real" acupuncture is no more effective than sham acupuncture (poking people in random places, or not even putting the needle into the skin).

I guess I wished away my carpal tunnel pain...

 

[softmed]

I guess I wished away my carpal tunnel pain...

Personal anecdotes are not scientific evidence.

You probably had a very strong reaction to the treatment because you believed it would work. The placebo effect is very powerful. As I also said, stabbing needles into a person also induces a physiological response.

 

[7starmantis]

Evidence based medicine has but one flaw. I say that because its really our only base for serious scientific medicine but it does have a flaw. It rests on the assumption that our knowledge base is complete, which it isn't. We can argue about how complete it is, but its simply not complete. Now, I'm not advocating homeopathy but there are "alternative" things that can be of benefit.

 

[softmed]

Evidence based medicine has but one flaw. I say that because its really our only base for serious scientific medicine but it does have a flaw. It rests on the assumption that our knowledge base is complete, which it isn't. We can argue about how complete it is, but its simply not complete. Now, I'm not advocating homeopathy but there are "alternative" things that can be of benefit.

You're incorrect. That is not flaw of evidence based medicine. No one thinks our knowledge base is complete. We're using the evidence we have to make informed decisions knowing full well we could be wrong.

 

[URHere]

A couple of things about naturopathic medicine:

1) There are treatments other than "placebo" and good thoughts. Many practitioners suggest herbal therapies (many of which contain similar active ingredients to western medications), or treatments that are somewhat like cultural home remedies. Some of them have been used for centuries to treat the symptoms of illness, and just because we don't know how they work doesn't mean that they are ineffective.

2) Many patients with a naturopathic primary care provider WILL tell their patients to go see an MD for serious illness. I have seen several patients in clinic lately who have been sent to us because of severe colds or possible pneumonia. I think you will find that most providers (regardless of their degree) will refer patients when things are out of their scope.

3) This isn't related to naturopathic medicine, but be careful using the term "water pill". To you, it may mean a placebo. To most patients I have encountered, it means a diuretic (it makes patients pee like crazy, hence, water pill)...and diuretics can be dangerous if given to the wrong patients. Don't ever tell someone you are giving them a "water pill" unless you specify.

4) One huge benefit of naturopathic medicine is that providers spend a great deal of time just listening to patients (at least one hour/visit is standard). Contrast that to a 10 minute visit with an MD, and patients are very likely to feel more satisfied with the naturopathic encounter. They get to discuss all of their symptoms and they actually begin to form a bond with their provider.

 

[osumc2014]

"**To all the sick people of facebook.. Don't waste your time or money going to the Urgent Care in xxxxxx... I went there 2x in 8 days to get told I have a viral infection and never got any kind of antibiotic... Luckily today my normal dr's office had an opening and I got told the same damn thing, that I have a viral infection and they gave me some medicine... NEVER will I go to Urgent care again!**"

I think it would be tempting if an otherwise healthy patient came into my office with a nasty cold and demanded antibiotics. There's something to be said for water pills.*

*By water pills I mean homeopathy.

how do antibiotics treat viral infections...

 

[turkeyjerky]

If you're telling the pt that these "water pills" are going to help them then yes they are a placebo. Homeopathic remedies are essentially an entire industry built on placebo effects. The whole idea is to dilute the proposed active ingredient until it is no longer there for all practical purposes (i.e., dilutions of 1:10^1 to 1:10^400). In terms of a direct medical benefit, homeopathy is obviously quack "medicine."

Even so there is actually some value to homeopathy. Despite the fact that its actual theoretical basis is extremely flawed, the fact that it relies upon placebo effects is its redemption. Placebo effects are actually very powerful and should probably be used in medicine far more than they are. Experiments have shown that 50-75% of the effect of many drugs (e.g., pain meds, psychotropics, etc.) can be attributed to the patient's belief that the drug works. It has even been shown that the effects of powerful drugs such as morphine are greatly reduced when a pt is unaware of the administration of said drug (i.e., is told s/he is only receiving saline in a clinical trial) and that people will tend to develop whatever side effects we indicate may occur (i.e., the nocebo effect). When it comes to nonspecific symptoms (and one can rule out more serious complications, illnesses, etc.), this means it's probably worthwhile to give a sugar pill instead of an actual drug since the sugar pill will appease the pt w/o actually causing positive or negative side effects.

Not really. Most of that is just the natural course of disease (most things tend to get better, with or without treatment). To actually measure the placebo effect, you have to compare an inactive compound with no treatment. Those studies that have done so have found the placebo effect to be greatly exaggerated. It's most effective for subjective complaints such as pain or nausea. Coincidently, those are the same two complaints for which acupuncture is typically indicated. Go figure.

 

[45408]

I guess I wished away my carpal tunnel pain...

Very possible. I'm not joking. People are easily fooled into believing something worked due to the following things:

1. The very real placebo effect. You believed it would work, so it did.
2. Self-limiting nature of disease. You were going to get better anyways.
3. Regression to the mean.

 

[RogueUnicorn]

4) One huge benefit of naturopathic medicine is that providers spend a great deal of time just listening to patients (at least one hour/visit is standard). Contrast that to a 10 minute visit with an MD, and patients are very likely to feel more satisfied with the naturopathic encounter. They get to discuss all of their symptoms and they actually begin to form a bond with their provider.

bond with the provider means nothing when the provider is providing quackery

 

[45408]

Evidence based medicine has but one flaw. I say that because its really our only base for serious scientific medicine but it does have a flaw. It rests on the assumption that our knowledge base is complete, which it isn't. We can argue about how complete it is, but its simply not complete. Now, I'm not advocating homeopathy but there are "alternative" things that can be of benefit.

I don't know any scientist who has ever said that our knowledge base is complete. That's a straw man fallacy. In fact, it should be obvious that almost NO scientist would even think that, because it would guarantee that their next grant request would be denied, because the NIH/NSF is only going to fund research into things that we don't already have answers to.

 

[softmed]

Many practitioners suggest herbal therapies (many of which contain similar active ingredients to western medications), or treatments that are somewhat like cultural home remedies. Some of them have been used for centuries to treat the symptoms of illness, and just because we don't know how they work doesn't mean that they are ineffective.

This is true: literally anything is possible. I could advocate licking the floor as a possible treatment for athletes foot and it's possible it would work. But the science behind it is very weak and most people would laugh (as I'm sure someone did) at the very idea. However, if you pass the idea from generation to generation telling them it works, and then after thousands of years it becomes a cultural tradition, suddenly it becomes an idea of reverence and people think it's possible because it's old. Advocates could then say things like: Just because you don't know how floor licking works doesn't mean it's ineffective, it's been used for 1000s of years.

Herbal remedies specifically are a trickier subject, and I'm not going to get into the details. I'd personally rather stay away from an untested "similar" compound.

3) This isn't related to naturopathic medicine, but be careful using the term "water pill". To you, it may mean a placebo. To most patients I have encountered, it means a diuretic (it makes patients pee like crazy, hence, water pill)...and diuretics can be dangerous if given to the wrong patients. Don't ever tell someone you are giving them a "water pill" unless you specify.

I hadn't realized when I made the post that it could also mean a diuretic. Plus a placebo doesn't work if you tell them it's a placebo. You'd want to pretend homeopathy works. They have names that sound like real drugs .

 

[RogueUnicorn]

This is true: literally anything is possible. I could advocate licking the floor as a possible treatment for athletes foot and it's possible it would work. But the science behind it is very weak and most people would laugh (as I'm sure someone did) at the very idea. However, if you pass the idea from generation to generation telling them it works, and then after thousands of years it becomes a cultural tradition, suddenly it becomes an idea of reverence and people think it's possible because it's old. Advocates could then say things like: Just because you don't know how floor licking works doesn't mean it's ineffective, it's been used for 1000s of years.

this is a fallacious analogy - you are assuming that any idea you have will be passed down for generations, even if it doesn't work.

 

[URHere]

Very possible. I'm not joking. People are easily fooled into believing something worked.

Honesly, I really don't see why it matters.

If someone comes in with pain, and they leave without it, then somewhere along the line, something happened to relieve that pain. If the procedure actually physically removed it, then I think that everyone would agree that the procedure was valid. But if it was some combination of mental manipulation and physical manipulation, why is everyone so quick to call it quackery? The point is, that a provider helped and guided someone towards feeling better. Even if it was purely mental relief, that provider showed the patient how to interpret their pain differently - what's fake about that?

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Honesly, I really don't see why it matters.

If someone comes in with pain, and they leave without it, then somewhere along the line, something happened to relieve that pain. If the procedure actually physically removed it, then I think that everyone would agree that the procedure was valid. But if it was some combination of mental manipulation and physical manipulation, why is everyone so quick to call it quackery? The point is, that a provider helped and guided someone towards feeling better. Even if it was purely mental relief, that provider showed the patient how to interpret their pain differently - what's fake about that?

pain isn't the problem it's merely a symptom of something else - something benign or something very bad.

 

[URHere]

pain isn't the problem it's merely a symptom of something else - something benign or something very bad.

Pain is complex. I think that many people who seek out naturopathic therapy have chronic pain that modern medicine has no way of adequately dealing with. In many of these cases pain IS the primary problem (i.e. somewhere along the line a nerve has been damaged and cannot be repaired). Yes, if this pain is the result of cancer, then fixing the cancer is the best therapy. But if it was from a minor trauma 15 years ago? Then...the pain really is the central problem, and the only one you can treat.

And...as for your previous comment of bonding with providers. The benefit of long sessions isn't just about bonding. The number one predictor of how satisfied a patient feels with a medical encounter is how much they feel listened to. Not treatment. Not provider knowledge. But how much freedom they are given to talk while the provider just listens.

 

[apumic]

Not really. Most of that is just the natural course of disease (most things tend to get better, with or without treatment). To actually measure the placebo effect, you have to compare an inactive compound with no treatment. Those studies that have done so have found the placebo effect to be greatly exaggerated. It's most effective for subjective complaints such as pain or nausea. Coincidently, those are the same two complaints for which acupuncture is typically indicated. Go figure.

I am well aware of how a clinical study on the placebo effect is conducted and the need to compare a placebo to a no tx group. The difference between no-Tx (control) & placebo Tx groups has been found to be significant w/ typical effect sizes in the moderate range and P-values < 0.01. A number of studies have compared a medication across 3 conditions -- no Tx control, placebo control, and medical treatment -- and consistently found the placebo to be a powerful mediator of symptom relief. On the other side are researchers looking at the placebo effect itself. These researchers have studied possible physiological and psychological pathways by which placebo effects may occur. Once again, there is strong support for these effects and it is more a question of just how these effects occur (i.e., their pathway) than it is whether they exist.

Yes, placebo effects tend to be most effective for subjective complaints. That is what would be expected based upon the proposed pathways of the placebo effect. One would not expect to "magically" see emphysema cured by sugar pills as that does not fit any known possible pathway for the placebo effect. On the other hand, we would expect a person to "feel better" (i.e., feel less pain) or to have depression lift some due to a placebo effect, which is exactly what we see.

So yes, I am completely unsurprised by the fact that the placebo effect has similar "indications" to those of acupuncture. This simply supports the argument that treatments such as acupuncture are most likely a form of the placebo effect. For lesser complaints (for which we know there is little to be done from a medical standpoint anyway), I really see no reason not to utilize the placebo effect in clinical practice (assuming, of course, we are sure this is a "run-of-the-mill" type of pain case not needing more advanced medical assessment and/or treatment) as it does have quite a bit of power to it, albeit not necessarily via biochemical processes (although I recall an article somewhat recently examining the biochemical pathways of the placebo effect that was quite fascinating; I may have to find it....).

 

[F4 Phantom]

how do antibiotics treat viral infections...

they dont

 

[softmed]

this is a fallacious analogy - you are assuming that any idea you have will be passed down for generations, even if it doesn't work.

I didn't say any and all ideas will be passed on forever, I just described how one could be and how it's meaningless an argument. Unless astrology, alchemy, dowsing, homeopathy, all religions, etc, are all correct you know of ideas that are completely wrong but passed on for many generations (in some cases thousands of years). My point is that something being old shouldn't be used in place of evidence.

 

[caseofthemndays]

how do antibiotics treat viral infections...

haha

 

[Aphtalyfe]

Do we define acupuncture as a scam? Because if we do, I must object...

It depends on what you're talking about. Are you saying the actual ancient "science" behind acupuncture is valid? Are you saying that poking needles in people elicits some kind of physiologic response? Are you saying it's a placebo?

Overall the evidence is very ambiguous (mostly due to the inability for anyone to agree on how to properly test the claims of acupuncture). There's a very strong placebo effect in the adequately designed studies. There's no evidence to support the idea of traditional Chinese acupuncture.

I guess I wished away my carpal tunnel pain...

Personal anecdotes are not scientific evidence.

You probably had a very strong reaction to the treatment because you believed it would work. The placebo effect is very powerful. As I also said, stabbing needles into a person also induces a physiological response.

I had pretty severe elbow pain that was undiagnosed with a physical exam by my PCP, orthopedic surgeon, and an MRI.

I went to acupuncture because my mom kept bugging me about it, I went there thinking it was all a sham and that this guy is full of it. He does acupuncture for free.

Right after the visit my elbow pain was gone for about 24 hours, I went again, and it went away for ~36 hours, went 2 more times and by the final time the pain was completely gone. Keep in mind this was chronic elbow pain... I had it for about a year.

n=2 on this thread now... which isn't saying much... but I thought I would mention it anyways.

 

[wanderer]

bond with the provider means nothing when the provider is providing quackery

It means a lot. A good deal of people that get alternative medicine don't realize it's quackery and have symptoms that are often too insignificant to get actual treatment from real doctors. Sometimes people just need some attention.

 

[Dr McSexy]

Nm

 

[FluffyRabbit]

Homeopathy's idea of diluting things down to the point where there would not be even a single active molecule in solution and relying on "water memory" is absolutely ludicrous. For it to do anything beyond the placebo effect, modern physics and chemistry needs to be flat out wrong.

On the other hand, there is no reason why traditional Chinese medicine has to be quackery. I can believe the idea that some herbs have therapeutic effects and poking people's nerves does stimulate them. Although concepts such as the Yin and the Yang and the body being made of 5 elements aren't exactly true in the context of modern science, I feel that they were used as heuristics to explain the observed effects of various medications back when science was nowhere as advanced as it is today.

I don't really have a problem with people pursuing alternative methods as long as they are referred to actual medical doctors should the need arise.

 

[apumic]

haha, this is pointing out a lack of knowledge, which is why you would be able to treat someone with placebo, because you don't have to explain to them how the "medicine" you're giving them will help

Well.... That's not entirely true as one of the primary pathways for the placebo effect appears to be one of expectation. The person must be convinced, at least on a subconscious level, that the treatment will work. In some cases, this may require some convincing for certain types of people (i.e., "skeptics" who ask a lot of questions). Of course, this is less likely to be done in clinical practice (where lying would be unethical) than in research (where the lie is a part of the experiment itself and pts will be debriefed post-experiment).

I had pretty severe elbow pain that was undiagnosed with a physical exam by my PCP, orthopedic surgeon, and an MRI.

I went to acupuncture because my mom kept bugging me about it, I went there thinking it was all a sham and that this guy is full of it. He does acupuncture for free.

Right after the visit my elbow pain was gone for about 24 hours, I went again, and it went away for ~36 hours, went 2 more times and by the final time the pain was completely gone. Keep in mind this was chronic elbow pain... I had it for about a year.

n=2 on this thread now... which isn't saying much... but I thought I would mention it anyways.

Yes, this is a placebo effect. Placebo effects often relieve pain effectively -- making them potentially very useful in the treatment of nonspecific or chronic pain. The fact that you "believed he was full of it" does not necessarily preclude a placebo effect. In one study, after being treated with a placebo or control, subjects were asked to fill out a survey stating whether they felt the placebo (or control) had helped their pain. Many subjects answered "no" yet the actual pain tolerance scale used in the experiment (length of time tolerating localized cold) showed a very distinct difference between the control and placebo conditions (P<0.001, n=~60).

 

[osumc2014]

haha, this is pointing out a lack of knowledge, which is why you would be able to treat someone with placebo, because you don't have to explain to them how the "medicine" you're giving them will help

Is it not part of informed consent to explain what the drug does exactly?

 

[Charles English]

it almost hurts to spread this,
but since homeopathy is on the table (sort of), i thought the 'real, scientific' explanation of its mechanism would be appropriate *cringe*

watch this (if you can take it)

 

[RogueUnicorn]

Yes, this is a placebo effect. Placebo effects often relieve pain effectively -- making them potentially very useful in the treatment of nonspecific or chronic pain. The fact that you "believed he was full of it" does not necessarily preclude a placebo effect. In one study, after being treated with a placebo or control, subjects were asked to fill out a survey stating whether they felt the placebo (or control) had helped their pain. Many subjects answered "no" yet the actual pain tolerance scale used in the experiment (length of time tolerating localized cold) showed a very distinct difference between the control and placebo conditions (P<0.001, n=~60).

uh.. what the heck is a non-placebo control?

 

[shiftingmirage]

Is it not part of informed consent to explain what the drug does exactly?

That's kinda my problem. So physician decides to give a placebo, what will he/she tell the pt. This is a sugar pill? This will make you feel better? If they would call it an antibiotic, which would not help a virus, then they are lying which is unethical.

Also, there is already tons of OTC meds for the symptoms of a cold. There's a reason some drugs are OTC and others are Rx only. OTC drugs tend to be more safe, in general, for everyone. With an Rx you risk more problems. Not to mention, lots, if not every, drug has some side effect. Why take the risk when a nasty cold, while very annoying, will be treated by your immune system, assuming you're healthy. And for the record, there is no cure for the common cold,only things that treat the symptoms...the same things you can get at OTC at CVS.

 

[apumic]

uh.. what the heck is a non-placebo control?

It is a no treatment group. Patients are given an inert substance without any (expressed or implied) expectation of an effect (via any known/suspected pathway for such effects). Depending on exactly what you're trying to determine, that control may look different. If you are simply examining whether or not a placebo effect is taking place or its power, you might use a control group in which pre-experimental symptoms are similar (via random sampling) and then give that group no treatment at all (i.e., skip the sham treatment), which controls for any maturation effects, testing effects, regression toward the mean, etc. On the other hand, if you are testing the pathway of the effect, such as whether it might occur via classical conditioning, you could administer a pill in one group and give the other something else that would simply distract them while taking the test. (Exactly what might be used depends upon the test to be administered, so methodology isn't so easy to generalize.)
Two dominant pathways by which placebo effects are believed to occur are classical conditioning and power of suggestion. As a result, these are common targets when examining placebo effects in research.

 

[apumic]

That's kinda my problem. So physician decides to give a placebo, what will he/she tell the pt. This is a sugar pill? This will make you feel better? If they would call it an antibiotic, which would not help a virus, then they are lying which is unethical.

Also, there is already tons of OTC meds for the symptoms of a cold. There's a reason some drugs are OTC and others are Rx only. OTC drugs tend to be more safe, in general, for everyone. With an Rx you risk more problems. Not to mention, lots, if not every, drug has some side effect. Why take the risk when a nasty cold, while very annoying, will be treated by your immune system, assuming you're healthy. And for the record, there is no cure for the common cold,only things that treat the symptoms...the same things you can get at OTC at CVS.

Some PCPs actually do this already, although I am unsure exactly how it is done ethically. One option would be to tell them it is an alternative or experimental medicine, which it technically would be and many patients believe in alternative medicine anyway. (No reason psychological treatment that has physical effects cannot be used to heal the body of minor symptoms.)

 

[boaz]

There is a difference between the case of a doc 'prescribing' a placebo and the case where the patient tells the doc that he's been "taking this homeopathic stuff and feels great!" In the latter I cannot think of a compelling reason for the doc to tell the patient not to take it: whatever is in there is so diluted that we can assume that it poses no risk; and the placebo effect surely ain't gonna hurt.

 

[45408]

Honesly, I really don't see why it matters.

If someone comes in with pain, and they leave without it, then somewhere along the line, something happened to relieve that pain. If the procedure actually physically removed it, then I think that everyone would agree that the procedure was valid. But if it was some combination of mental manipulation and physical manipulation, why is everyone so quick to call it quackery? The point is, that a provider helped and guided someone towards feeling better. Even if it was purely mental relief, that provider showed the patient how to interpret their pain differently - what's fake about that?

You really should read up on evidence-based medicine. This is the difference between an MD and a shaman. We have real evidence to prove that our treatments are better and more effective than a placebo. Acupuncture is NOT harmless. People get MRSA and hepatitis from contaminated needles. A sharp object going near the chest has resulted in a pneumothorax. One of my classmates just did a presentation on the morbidity and mortality caused by alternative medicine.

Here's something for you to check out: What's the harm? http://whatstheharm.net/acupuncture.html

 

[URHere]

You really should read up on evidence-based medicine.

The irony of this is beautiful.

For the record, my point wasn't that things like acupuncture are totally harmless. You'd be hard pressed to find any medical procedure that is without risk. My point was that there is really no reason to take people who have already participated in non-western procedures and tell them, "OMG, you are so vulnerable to the placebo effect!". If they feel better and you have no evidence as to whether the technique actually works or not (and honestly, nearly all of the "homeopathy = placebo" papers I've read are fraught with giant holes in logic), then leave well enough alone. That's all I'm saying.

In my opinion, the lack of respect MDs have for other medical professionals is absolutely disgraceful. Whether you agree with their form of medicine or not, naturopaths, PAs, nurses, podiatrists, etc are ALL medical professionals, and they deserve some respect. The patients who choose to go to them also deserve much more respect than they have been given on this thread.

 

[KeyzerSoze]

The irony of this is beautiful.

For the record, my point wasn't that things like acupuncture are totally harmless. You'd be hard pressed to find any medical procedure that is without risk. My point was that there is really no reason to take people who have already participated in non-western procedures and tell them, "OMG, you are so vulnerable to the placebo effect!". If they feel better and you have no evidence as to whether the technique actually works or not (and honestly, nearly all of the "homeopathy = placebo" papers I've read are fraught with giant holes in logic), then leave well enough alone. That's all I'm saying.

In my opinion, the lack of respect MDs have for other medical professionals is absolutely disgraceful. Whether you agree with their form of medicine or not, naturopaths, PAs, nurses, podiatrists, etc are ALL medical professionals, and they deserve some respect. The patients who choose to go to them also deserve much more respect than they have been given on this thread.

Naturopaths are not medical professionals.

 

[45408]

The irony of this is beautiful.

Do tell, because I see none. Advocating placebos is not evidence-based medicine.

For the record, my point wasn't that things like acupuncture are totally harmless. You'd be hard pressed to find any medical procedure that is without risk. My point was that there is really no reason to take people who have already participated in non-western procedures and tell them, "OMG, you are so vulnerable to the placebo effect!". If they feel better and you have no evidence as to whether the technique actually works or not (and honestly, nearly all of the "homeopathy = placebo" papers I've read are fraught with giant holes in logic), then leave well enough alone. That's all I'm saying.

I wouldn't say any medical procedure is without risk, which is why I find it appalling to recommend someone undergo a treatment with NO proven benefit but still has risk. We're not talking about sugar pills, we're talking about stabbing needles into people. I'm applying for surgery residencies, and I'll be the first to tell you: if you don't need surgery, don't get it. It can be harmful or even fatal. I saw a man die after he getting his gall bladder out.

In my opinion, the lack of respect MDs have for other medical professionals is absolutely disgraceful. Whether you agree with their form of medicine or not, naturopaths, PAs, nurses, podiatrists, etc are ALL medical professionals, and they deserve some respect. The patients who choose to go to them also deserve much more respect than they have been given on this thread.

No, naturopaths are not medical professionals. They're naturopaths, and that's it. You disgrace nurses and PAs by lumping them in with those guys. I also don't necessarily blame the patient - they're often desperate and will believe what they're told. It's the job of the medical profession to find medical treatments that ACTUALLY work and be honest and up front with the patient population as a whole as to what we know.

 

[shiftingmirage]

For the record, my point wasn't that things like acupuncture are totally harmless. You'd be hard pressed to find any medical procedure that is without risk. My point was that there is really no reason to take people who have already participated in non-western procedures and tell them, "OMG, you are so vulnerable to the placebo effect!". If they feel better and you have no evidence as to whether the technique actually works or not (and honestly, nearly all of the "homeopathy = placebo" papers I've read are fraught with giant holes in logic), then leave well enough alone. That's all I'm saying.

Granted in this case which seems to be a cold, I don't see a problem, but what if it was something more serious? There was a case recently about the daughter of Jehovah's Witnesses who was battling cancer, and her parents did not want to give her medical treatment. The difficulty, as it often is, is where to draw the line. A cold, sure. What if someone has diabetes and believes prayer, or homeopathic regiment will cure/treat them? At some point, it is a physician's duty to tell the patient that homeopathic wont work. If we say use it for the cold, but not the diabetes, the patient may go home and say, 'ya know what, it worked for the cold, so I'm going to try it for the diabetes.' Or, 'well, he said yes the first time, but know says no. Maybe he is unsure/doesn't know what he is doing.' Or worse, the pt gets a yes for the cold, and when another problem arises, figures, well the doc said I could use homeo last time so I'll just do it this time without consulting him, and the problem is something big. As a doc, or judge, person, you don't want to set a precedence that cannot be applied universally.

In my opinion, the lack of respect MDs have for other medical professionals is absolutely disgraceful. Whether you agree with their form of medicine or not, naturopaths, PAs, nurses, podiatrists, etc are ALL medical professionals, and they deserve some respect.

That's probably a true statement, but look at the chain of command. MD, PA, nurse. There is a reason that doc's go through more training than the rest. At the end of the day, MD is the head of the team, and the one responsible. That doesn't mean they should treat their co-workers like crap, but if a disagreement arises, the MD will do what he's going to do because he is the guy in charge.

I also don't think someone saying 'it wont work' is disrespectful. They are voicing their opinion, base on what they believe. Watch any political thing where dems and reps are discussing why their plan is better than the other guys. It is not disrespect, it is a difference of opinions. If everyone thought the same, there would be no need for discussions, as there would be nothing to discuss. Not agreeing does not make one disrespectful.

 

[URHere]

Do tell, because I see none.

I wouldn't say any medical procedure is without risk, which is why I find it appalling to recommend someone undergo a treatment with NO proven benefit but still has risk.

I was just saying that it's ironic to tell an MD/PhD student (who essentially lives in the literature) to brush up on evidence-based medicine. It just made me chuckle a bit.

It's clear that the two of us have a fundamental disagreement about what may or may not be useful. Putting that aside, I never said that I would recommend a procedure like acupuncture to a patient. However, if a patient of mine decided that they wanted to pursue it, and stuck by that decision after I explained the risks and possible benefits to them, I certainly wouldn't call them an impressionable ***** for giving alternative medicine a chance.

Granted in this case which seems to be a cold, I don't see a problem, but what if it was something more serious?

Not agreeing does not make one disrespectful.

I'm an allopathic medical student. Predictably, I advocate for removing and treating something like cancer if it is present, and I would never claim that most natural treatments are good treatment alternatives in those cases. However, when there is nothing modern medicine can do, I see nothing wrong with a patient turning to naturopathic medicine if that's what they want to do.

And, I agree with you - disagreement does not have to equal disrespect. However, when it is forceful and dismissive disagreement (as it often is on SDN), I would call it disrespectful.

 

[Concubine]

I'm an allopathic medical student. Predictably, I advocate for removing and treating something like cancer if it is present, and I would never claim that most natural treatments are good treatment alternatives in those cases. However, when there is nothing modern medicine can do, I see nothing wrong with a patient turning to naturopathic medicine if that's what they want to do.

Maybe, but still a potential huge waste of financial resource on the patient and their family. For example, my Dad was diagnosed w/ stage 4 prostate cancer recently. One of the first things he did was go out and purchase a $3,000 "electrical machine" that supposedly got rid of some guy's (he barely knows) prostate cancer. Now he is not a rich man, and $3000???? What a waste.