What the heck is Naturopathic Medicine?

[Concubine]

---

Members don't see this ad.

It's not a lack of optimism that would lead me to tell a patient if he were dying. It's realism. People don't want to confront death, but this is the wrong business for that. People die, and a physician will have to be in a position to be willing to call it when necessary and not send them to the sharks.

I won't have a problem telling my patients they are dying. However, I would never tell my patient that there is no hope. Telling the patient that "I'm sorry, there is nothing more that I can do for you" is a lot different than saying "I'm sorry, there is nothing more that I can do for you and you can do for yourself". Besides, even a small chance is still a chance.

 

[Kthanksbye]

I won't have a problem telling my patients they are dying. However, I would never tell my patient that there is no hope. Telling the patient that "I'm sorry, there is nothing more that I can do for you" is a lot different than saying "I'm sorry, there is nothing more that I can do for you and you can do for yourself". Besides, even a small chance is still a chance.

From desperation is born the most hopeless of endeavors. Better to let them go in peace. Death is a natural process of life. No one can avoid it, although people try. The medical profession itself is infused with this phobia. Hopeless end of life care is the largest contributer to health care costs when family and physician alike are unwilling to pull the plug. Why perpetuate it with unproven "alternative" remedies as well. I believe in death with dignity. Sometimes the most compassionate thing you can do is to let someone die.

 

[Concubine]

Yes, but although rare, some of the best things come out of situations where there is no hope.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Yes, but although rare, some of the best things come out of situations where there is no hope.

Perhaps. Or perhaps you watch too many movies.😉

 

[Concubine]

Perhaps. Or perhaps you watch too many movies.😉

I do

(damn you "feel good" movies)

 

[Concubine]

Stop, your posts are getting silly. If you had a modicum of experience with clinical medicine, you would realize that your little scenarios exist only in your own mind. Seeing "objective, unexplained benefit" from alternative therapies, telling people "there's nothing left for us to do for you". These are imaginary scenarios you will see on TV that just don't correlate to real life.

um..yeah. Never claimed they were real or common, just possible.

We never see benefit from CAM therapies, other than "my fibromyalgia is better lately".

Perhaps, but many patients and some doctors would disagree.

I hope that a few years from now, if you get into med school and see what we actually do, you will re-read your posts here and marvel at your own naivette.

After I finally decide on which school to go to, finish, and become a resident, I don't think I will ever get on to SDN again. Jumping on premeds to feed my ego just doesn't sound that appealing to me.

 

[PT2MD]

I don't think Tired is killing you. Seriously (not speaking from experience as an MD of course) as a PT, seeing patients waste time, hope, and money on these scams does get pretty tough to watch at times.

I understand getting irritated by Tired's statements, but you will come to realize the truth of them down the road when you start treating patients.

 

[Concubine]

Thank you for a more civil post, the personal attacks people start on SDN are lame.

I understand, my clinical exposure is next to none. And tired is right, in that I really have no idea of what I'll face until I start practicing. It is very possible, that my attitude towards CAM will sour on or before that point.

 

[Kthanksbye]

Thank you for a more civil post, the personal attacks people start on SDN are lame.

I understand, my clinical exposure is next to none. And tired is right, in that I really have no idea of what I'll face until I start practicing. It is very possible, that my attitude towards CAM will sour on or before that point.

The definition of "personal attack" seems pretty broad here on SDN. Disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack. Strongly disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack. Name calling is a personal attack. I see no name calling on this thread. One can say, "your idea is stupid" without it being a personal attack. It is not the same thing as saying "you're stupid". But it seems that in all the talks of tolerance around here, it's intolerable to think someone is wrong. It drives people to hit that complaint button, and pretty soon people are getting emails from mods saying they are insulting people. I don't think there were any insults on this thread. Don't take it so personally. No one attacked YOU personally, just the ideas you currently purport to believe. Ideas are not you, you just identify with them strongly, perhaps too strongly. Tired was probably just suggesting that in a few years, you will see those same ideas and not identify with them at all. Happens all the time. It's called LEARNING.

 

[Omyss]

And your experience is thorough enough evidence to justify the use of alternative medical treatments without further research or regulation? If I told you that I once treated a severe case of anaphylactic shock with some gingko root extract would you be okay with your local emergency room using it to replace their epinephrine?

People say a lot of things. Some hunters from African bush tribes prefer cutting off their penises to treat urinary infections instead of taking big pharma antibiotics. Many chiropractors believe that any medical problem, from headaches to COPD to viral infections, can be cured by adjusting undetectable spinal misalignments. My uncle swears that a topical mixture of tabasco sauce and whole milk is the best cure for acne. Maybe some of these things actually have some basis in medical science, but until multiple careful studies produce consistent results and clear mechanisms of action, choosing alternative methods over current medical treatments is just arbitrary.

The reasoning in support of institutionalizing naturopathic medicine is often the same as that used by creationists trying to get their dogma taught in public science classes; both make use of a similar variety of fallacies. Probably the most exasperating is the belief that the burden of proof rests on proponents of modern medical science, and not on the individuals or organizations making a claim contrary to accepted empirical observations. Especially since there have been a lot of studies that do in fact provide evidence against such therapies.

You're missing my point.... i'm not saying it should be the end all and be all treatment route: Clinical medicine is the main way to go in most cases, but as a doctor i would at least encourage patients to explore different treatment options (depending on the situation ofcourse) becuase these things CAN work. They are certainly NOT ALL a total waste of time

 

[Concubine]

The definition of "personal attack" seems pretty broad here on SDN. Disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack. Strongly disagreeing with someone is not a personal attack. Name calling is a personal attack. I see no name calling on this thread. One can say, "your idea is stupid" without it being a personal attack. It is not the same thing as saying "you're stupid". But it seems that in all the talks of tolerance around here, it's intolerable to think someone is wrong. It drives people to hit that complaint button, and pretty soon people are getting emails from mods saying they are insulting people. I don't think there were any insults on this thread. Don't take it so personally. No one attacked YOU personally, just the ideas you currently purport to believe. Ideas are not you, you just identify with them strongly, perhaps too strongly. Tired was probably just suggesting that in a few years, you will see those same ideas and not identify with them at all. Happens all the time. It's called LEARNING.

Yeah, but there is definitely a difference between posting respectfully/proffessionally and posting like an a$$.

 

[Arjunsi]

You're missing my point.... i'm not saying it should be the end all and be all treatment route: Clinical medicine is the main way to go in most cases, but as a doctor i would at least encourage patients to explore different treatment options (depending on the situation ofcourse) becuase these things CAN work. They are certainly NOT ALL a total waste of time

Many naturopathic "physicians" do see their methods as a complete alternative to modern medical practices. If all you have is a hammer and all you were trained to do is to swing it around, then all you will see are nails. Many chiropractors will sign you up for twelve weeks of adjustments if you come in with an acute headache or muscle spasm, though few will also suggest a consult with a medical doctor.

Even worse; people who believe in the healing power of garlic and reiki energy bolts are often the same type of people that will swear that all doctors are on the big pharma companies payroll. Refer a patient to these types of treatments and you may never see them again - at least not until they are admitted into the hospital for renal failure or liver disease.

But really, these problems are trivial compared to my original point. Without valid evidence testifying to the efficacy and safety of CAM, it is foolish and potentially dangerous to include it even as a secondary form of treatment.

We shouldn't incorporate CAM alongside modern medicine just like we shouldn't teach creationism alongside evolution in highschools. Modifications to important social systems should only be made when strong reasoning exist to support the changes. Popular opinion and the inability to falsify the hypotheses do not count as valid reasons.

 

[Kthanksbye]

We shouldn't incorporate CAM alongside modern medicine just like we shouldn't teach creationism alongside evolution in highschools. Modifications to important social systems should only be made when strong reasoning exist to support the changes. Popular opinion and the inability to falsify the hypotheses do not count as valid reasons.

There is another similarity between creationism and "alternative medicine". Both project their own behavior on the establishment. Creationists claim that evolution is taught like "dogma" and is a "religion" of science, which is a better description of creationism than evolution. Similarly, alternative practitioners claim that doctors "know nothing" and have "sold out" to pharmaceuticals and are just after your money. It's an argument that seems to compel a lot of listeners. But it describes alternative medicine better than physicians. They generally know very little about the disease processes they say they can treat, and are generally totally sold on only a few treatment modalities. The end result of their treatment is usually just patients who are just as sick, only poorer. It's an old trick which seems to still work.

Also, if you ever listen to alternative practitioners much, they have a litany of complaints about medical doctors, and many treatment regimes involve shunning all treatment provided by doctors. They are encouraged to stop taking their meds and stop seeing physicians or, they are warned, the "alternative" treatments won't work.

 

[ddstobe]

Who should do this funding? The government? Actually the NIH CAM division is currently wasting tons of money studying a lot of this kind of useless stuff. But if a person makes a claim and creates a product for it, it is on them to prove that it works. You can't just say, "hey, this herbal stuff I created cures cancer, go study it!" Nothing works that way. If a drug company creates a pill, they have to prove it works. They don't start selling it and then complain that there's no funding to prove anything. This is a ploy. So-called alternative medicine makes plenty of money. They don't study it because it would invariably limit their market. But they complain that it's not being studied and cry poverty and oppression if anyone suggests they fund it. But really, why would they want to study it? Without a study, they can continue to claim it as a cure-all and people will buy it in droves. With the study, it will be proven limitedly effective or possibly completely bogus or even harmful. Why would they do that? When the NIH concludes that something like [FONT=sans-serif, helvetica, Times New Roman, Times]Echinacea .or [FONT=sans-serif, helvetica, Times New Roman, Times] Ginkgo biloba. is completely useless, no one listens anyway. They claim the studies are flawed and continue selling them as they did before. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that those acupuncture studies are correct, do you really think that acupuncturists are going to say, "well, lets remain evidence based and only treat symptoms that have evidence." Do you really think they are going to limit their practices? Just talk to one. They claim it is effective for all kinds of stuff that no one has studied.


How do you know eating live aphids won't cure your flu? Have you studied it? I implore you not to reject this out of hand. Try it, it worked for my cousin. Perhaps the NIH will get around to running a trial someday with your tax money.

I don't think Echinacea or Ginkgo are completely useless. Please provide a link to back up your statement.

 

[HumbleMD]

Many naturopathic "physicians" do see their methods as a complete alternative to modern medical practices. If all you have is a hammer and all you were trained to do is to swing it around, then all you will see are nails. Many chiropractors will sign you up for twelve weeks of adjustments if you come in with an acute headache or muscle spasm, though few will also suggest a consult with a medical doctor.

Even worse; people who believe in the healing power of garlic and reiki energy bolts are often the same type of people that will swear that all doctors are on the big pharma companies payroll. Refer a patient to these types of treatments and you may never see them again - at least not until they are admitted into the hospital for renal failure or liver disease.

But really, these problems are trivial compared to my original point. Without valid evidence testifying to the efficacy and safety of CAM, it is foolish and potentially dangerous to include it even as a secondary form of treatment.

We shouldn't incorporate CAM alongside modern medicine just like we shouldn't teach creationism alongside evolution in highschools. Modifications to important social systems should only be made when strong reasoning exist to support the changes. Popular opinion and the inability to falsify the hypotheses do not count as valid reasons.

👍👍👍
Good call. Any good physician would never dismiss a potentially better treatment option. Good physicians also, however, operate on the principle of evidence and clinical studies to prove efficacy (some better and quicker than others) before giving an endorsement to alternative therapies. Unfortunately, the majority of "alternative" therapies remain "alternative" because they refuse to engage in a logical method of finding true effect, and instead enjoy their shielded status as herbs, food supplements, etc.

A for whether or not CAM can be dangerous, aside from the fact that some therapies are potentially iatrogenic, many CAM practitioners are indeed dissuading patients from seeking proven, main-stream therapies. In England this year, the homeopaths were getting into trouble for pushing their magic contentless water over proven malaria treatments. They're trying to do the same with AIDS. This is where CAM ceases to be regarded as a nice placebo for your patients, and is instead altogether dangerous.

 

[Kthanksbye]

I don't think Echinacea or Ginkgo are completely useless. Please provide a link to back up your statement.

It's been pointed out numerous times that without regulation, you can't be sure what you're getting when you buy herbal supplements.

Internet Marketing of Herbal Products - JAMA

Also, the most common side effect of herbal medications is acute renal failure or hepatic failure.



Spontaneous Hyphema Associated with Ingestion of Ginkgo biloba Extract - NEJM


Ineffectiveness of Echinacea for Prevention of Experimental Rhinovirus Colds - Antimicrob Agents Chemother.

NIH study
Echinacea Not Effective in Treating Children's Colds: Study Results

NPR piece on current NCCAM division studies:

As well as studying whether chelation works as a treatment for heart disease, researchers are also currently studying whether mistletoe helps cancer patients live longer, whether dark chocolate can lower blood pressure in hypertension patients and whether tai chi improves the well-being of cancer survivors.

Sounds like they are really putting your tax dollars to good use advancing medical science, don't it?


Let's see what you got.

 

[HumbleMD]

Let's see what you got.

👍Thanks for doing the leg-work on this.

 

[delta121]

every drug has a side effect. Just because America is home of MD's doesn't make americans the healthiest people on the planet. The healthiest people are the ones who see naturopaths and willing to take charge of their own health.

 

[Pedsbro]

every drug has a side effect. Just because America is home of MD's doesn't make americans the healthiest people on the planet. The healthiest people are the ones who see naturopaths and willing to take charge of their own health.

Really?... Assuming you're not a troll, I'd love to see some tangible evidence of this.

 

[delta121]

Really?....... Assuming you're not a troll, I'd love to see some tangible evidence of this.

Well, unfortunately, MD's don't have the time to spend listening to patients as ND's do. I blame the system. MD's are designed to keep patients alive. With 25% of americans being obese, it's now a serious problem that there's no such thing as a magic pill to beat it. Naturopaths have the time to find out what modalities work and what doesn't. Acupuncture, custom made diets only found in health food stores, tests to find out what's in excess and what's deficient, have all been able to help obese patients lose weight without the side effects of anti obesity medication.

There's been several cases that a diabetes patient had to have her leg amputated but opted to see a naturopath. Using the modalities above I mentioned, the amputation was not necessary. I think MD's and ND's should have more respect for each other. I think it's a little better in Canada than the US.

 

[ManualEvac]

We can always do more for our patients. We can always keep them alive another day. We can always keep fighting off cancer with chemo and radiation. We never see benefit from CAM therapies, other than "my fibromyalgia is better lately".

I hope that a few years from now, if you get into med school and see what we actually do, you will re-read your posts here and marvel at your own naivette.

First of all, it's spelled naiveté. "Naivette" was a crack ***** in my old neighborhood. Second of all, I would think you would know better than to say NEVER if you are actually a medical resident. Not that I can speak as a lowly pre-med, but in my encounters with MDs in other realms, most never say never and remain objective until clear evidence is provided. lest they make a false a$$umption.

Also, "CAM" is used out of context on this thread for any therapy that doesn't have an objectively measured clinical benefit, by which standard acupuncture, massage, saw palmetto and a number of other CAM which have undergone successful clinical trials would not fit. Do we cease to call these therapies CAM once proven? Do we include off-label uses of prescription drugs as CAM? Many posters are making an emotional appeal rather than a logical argument. BTW, the "complimentary" in CAM implies adjuvant therapy that doesn't interfere with primary medical interventions. Some are just "CM", and not "AM."

Not that I defend all CAM. Many, if not most, have not been studied extensively, or at all. The bottom line is, hate specific therapies that have not shown clinical efficacy, but don't 👎 everything that wasn't spoon-fed to you in med school without providing documentary proof (or proof that there is no proof).

 

[delta121]

regardless of the stubbornness of conventional MD's on CAM, the people decide which therapy they want. If they want massage to treat their muscle ache and pain, then that's what they want.

MD's are cool, but there's no shortage of doctors in the US, but there is a serious one in Canada, and there's not enough naturopaths to help our situation either.

Canadians don't have a choice anymore. Either wait 4 weeks to see a family doctor, or go wait 10 hours in a emergency room, so what other option do you have? I ask our MD friends in america to come to canada, accept a much lower paycheck to help out with the shortage. Please go to www.moredoctors.ca for more information.

We need about 2500 doctors each year. We only graduate 1500, and 20% head to the US. Please help americans.

 

[Law2Doc]

There's been several cases that a diabetes patient had to have her leg amputated but opted to see a naturopath. Using the modalities above I mentioned, the amputation was not necessary. I think MD's and ND's should have more respect for each other. I think it's a little better in Canada than the US.

Well I've unfortunately seen more than "several cases" of folks not having amputations for septic limbs and dying as a result. When a physician advocates for amputation, there's generally a really good and necessary reason for it.

I'm not sure why you bumped a year old thread, but being able to spend more time listening to patients is not really a good substitute for using empirically proven, evidence based, techniques. And if that's the one flaw you see with conventional medicine, then great -- you fix it by spending more times with your patients, not arguing for a lot of the "alternative" medicine things naturopaths assert.

 

[Law2Doc]

MD's are cool, but there's no shortage of doctors in the US,

Actually, there is. It was a cover story in USA today not that long ago.

 

[delta121]

Well I've unfortunately seen more than "several cases" of folks not having amputations for septic limbs and dying as a result. When a physician advocates for amputation, there's generally a really good and necessary reason for it.

I totally understand, and that I am sorry for. Ultimately, it is the patient's decision, and with religious people, God is the one who decides. The power of belief, Jesus to heal can do wonders. Ted Shuttlesworth, the minister can heal people which I won't say is impossible, no science involved.

 

[Law2Doc]

I totally understand, and that I am sorry for. Ultimately, it is the patient's decision, and with religious people, God is the one who decides. The power of belief, Jesus to heal can do wonders. Ted Shuttlesworth, the minister can heal people which I won't say is impossible, no science involved.

This is not the right board for religious rhetoric. This is a board for folks intending to enter allopathic medicine. You probably can find other places elsewhere on the web where they will entertain the discussion you desire. Good luck.

 

[Lokhtar]

I totally understand, and that I am sorry for. Ultimately, it is the patient's decision, and with religious people, God is the one who decides. The power of belief, Jesus to heal can do wonders. Ted Shuttlesworth, the minister can heal people which I won't say is impossible, no science involved.

Didn't expect to see a load of crap this big on a forum dedicated to help people going into science.

 

[GoldShadow]

the minister can heal people which I won't say is impossible

Oh, okay, well I'll say it's impossible.

 

[Lokhtar]

I'll second this.

 

[8744]

There's been several cases that a diabetes patient had to have her leg amputated but opted to see a naturopath. Using the modalities above I mentioned, the amputation was not necessary. I think MD's and ND's should have more respect for each other. I think it's a little better in Canada than the US.

Medical Doctor: "Mrs. Smith, you have type 2 diabetes. You need to get it under control. You can do this by diet and exercise but this has not worked so I want to put you on a common, low-cost oral hypoglycemic medication. As you know, the long term risks of uncontrolled diabetes are severe and include blindness, heart attacks, and even eventual amputation of your legs if the vascular disease that results from your diabetes gets really bad."

Naturopath: "Mrs. Smith, we can control your diabetes with these expensive Chinese herbs and weekly Reiki sessions and your legs will be fine. I guarantee it....(twenty minutes of attentive listening to the patient's mostly emotional problems)"

Mrs. Smith: "Hallelujeah! My legs are saved!

 

[8744]

In other words, Delta121, if you have ever seen a diabetic limb that is ready to be and should be amputated you would never assert that naturopaths have anything to offer to salvage the limb. It's not as if real doctors just decide willy-nilly, "Hey, let's cut that puppy off." The decision to amputate is preceded by years of whittling a toe here, a toe there, non-healing infections, pain, and all manners of problems from dead nerves and blood vessels.

Diabetics need tight glycemic control. The naturopaths and other quacks can get away with treating diabetes and other chronic diseases because the natural progression of these are usually slow and by the time it is too late you can always point the finger at real doctors.

Good Lord.

 

[Pedsbro]

Medical Doctor: "Mrs. Smith, you have type 2 diabetes. You need to get it under control. You can do this by diet and exercise but this has not worked so I want to put you on a common, low-cost oral hypoglycemic medication. As you know, the long term risks of uncontrolled diabetes are severe and include blindness, heart attacks, and even eventual amputation of your legs if the vascular disease that results from your diabetes gets really bad."

Naturopath: "Mrs. Smith, we can control your diabetes with these expensive Chinese herbs and weekly Reiki sessions and your legs will be fine. I guarantee it....(twenty minutes of attentive listening to the patient's mostly emotional problems)"

Mrs. Smith: "Hallelujeah! My legs are saved!

😆 That was awesome. As for you OP, I still have yet to see that tangible evidence I asked you about when you first bumped this year-old thread. You know...about how only the healthiest people are the ones who see naturopaths... Or would you care to revise your previous statement?

 

[lol.psych]

Western medicine has effed up a lot of times, as has 'natural' medicine. That's not to say that either or both should be dismissed altogether.

Natural medicines - yogurt is extremely useful in treating fungal infections
Cranberry juice and cranberry products are extremely effective in preventing urinary tract infections
(just pubmed it)

Both became popular/were originally used by "natural" medicine lovers, but now Western med is catching on.

I don't think either should be dismissed. I think there's a happy medium between OMG SCIENCE FOR EVERYONE and "we don't know how this works, but we should continue to use it anyway, even if it involves making tea from branches and twigs"

LETS GET ALONG OMG PLZ😀

 

[Law2Doc]

Western medicine has effed up a lot of times, as has 'natural' medicine. That's not to say that either or both should be dismissed altogether.

Natural medicines - yogurt is extremely useful in treating fungal infections
Cranberry juice and cranberry products are extremely effective in preventing urinary tract infections
(just pubmed it)

Both became popular/were originally used by "natural" medicine lovers, but now Western med is catching on.

I don't think either should be dismissed. I think there's a happy medium between OMG SCIENCE FOR EVERYONE and "we don't know how this works, but we should continue to use it anyway, even if it involves making tea from branches and twigs"

LETS GET ALONG OMG PLZ😀

I think you are missing the point of naturopathic versus allopathic. The difference isn't about natural medicines per se. Allopathic will use lots of things derived from nature, but requires that it be empirically proven first. So if you can find lots of pubmed articles in peer review journals accepting something as a good cure, an MD is going to use it. However your "now Western med is catching on" clause misses the point. It's not that they are late to the game, it's that they don't jump the gun; they wait for the science to agree before they administer it to folks. Every medicine, natural or not, has side effects, and reliance on any "alternative" medicine runs the risk of keeping someone from actually seeking out a proven cure. Naturopaths go a step beyond, and use things not borne out by research or not yet studied definitively. And that's bad.

So no, it's not a question of using natural remedies or catching up. It's a question of using things borne out by scientific evidence, and not before. We aren't going to school to treat based on wives' tales. We are going to school to treat based on scientifically/empirically demonstrated results. So yeah, if, (and only if) cranberry juice, etc is proven in an untainted double blind repeatable study to work on UTIs, then sure, allopathic physicians will and should be recommending it. But before it's empirically proven, it's bad practice. Until you get to that point, there is no happy medium. Nor should there be. It's not wrong for allopathics to insist on empirical proof of a remedy before using it. And thus not wrong for considering naturopaths wrong in deviating from this standard and calling it a viable "alternative" to something proven. Sorry, but doing this does kill people. Because when people think they have a cure, they don't seek out another. And they aren't informed enough to understand allopathic versus naturopathic -- if the person prescribing/administering things calls themselves a doctor or calls a concoction a medicine, they take it at face value (sometimes to their detriment/demise, as Panda suggested above).

 

[Lokhtar]

I don't think either should be dismissed. I think there's a happy medium between OMG SCIENCE FOR EVERYONE and "we don't know how this works, but we should continue to use it anyway, even if it involves making tea from branches and twigs"

LETS GET ALONG OMG PLZ😀

Except if it was proven to work, I'd have no problem using it, and neither would most allopathic doctors, even if the exact mechanism was unknown (a lot of things are like that). The problem is that its mostly smoke up people's ass because they can't prove that it works.

 

[bcat85]

Western medicine has effed up a lot of times, as has 'natural' medicine. That's not to say that either or both should be dismissed altogether.

Natural medicines - yogurt is extremely useful in treating fungal infections
Cranberry juice and cranberry products are extremely effective in preventing urinary tract infections
(just pubmed it)

Both became popular/were originally used by "natural" medicine lovers, but now Western med is catching on.

I don't think either should be dismissed. I think there's a happy medium between OMG SCIENCE FOR EVERYONE and "we don't know how this works, but we should continue to use it anyway, even if it involves making tea from branches and twigs"

LETS GET ALONG OMG PLZ😀

I don't doubt that.. natural medicine may help urinary tract infections..

For western medicine, see: Harrison's Internal Medicine... seems to be a lot of great home remedies in there.

 

[GoldShadow]

Except if it was proven to work, I'd have no problem using it, and neither would most allopathic doctors, even if the exact mechanism was unknown (a lot of things are like that). The problem is that its mostly smoke up people's ass because they can't prove that it works.

But I didn't say any of that 🙁🙁🙁

 

[8744]

Western medicine has effed up a lot of times, as has 'natural' medicine. That's not to say that either or both should be dismissed altogether.

Natural medicines - yogurt is extremely useful in treating fungal infections
Cranberry juice and cranberry products are extremely effective in preventing urinary tract infections
(just pubmed it)

Both became popular/were originally used by "natural" medicine lovers, but now Western med is catching on.

I don't think either should be dismissed. I think there's a happy medium between OMG SCIENCE FOR EVERYONE and "we don't know how this works, but we should continue to use it anyway, even if it involves making tea from branches and twigs"

LETS GET ALONG OMG PLZ😀

Bull. Nothing is "extremely effective" in preventing UTIs. I betcha' there are no good, well designed studies showing that cranberry juice is or is not effective. People swear by cranberry juice, of course, but if you think about it, I drink a lot of Diet Cherry Coke and I have never had a UTI so Diet Cherry Coke must prevent UTIs...and colon cancer, heart attacks, ulcerative colitis, and many other diseases I have never had.

And you need to get off of the yogurt kick. I like yogurt. I eat it all the time. I cook with it, make dips, and even marinate lamb in it. It is a very tasty, nutritious food but it has no power to prevent fungal infections or treat them. We do not slather yogurt on our patients with bad athelete's foot of icky, disgusting foot fungus. Nothing treats icky disgusting foot fungus. Even long courses of oral anti-fungals give only iffy results.

I have to repeat this to may patients all the time: There is no magic food you can eat that will make you healthy. You cannot eat your way to good health, in other words. The secret is variety, moderation, and not to obsess about your diet.

 

[Dienekes]

Bull. Nothing is "extremely effective" in preventing UTIs. I betcha' there are no good, well designed studies showing that cranberry juice is or is not effective. People swear by cranberry juice, of course, but if you think about it, I drink a lot of Diet Cherry Coke and I have never had a UTI so Diet Cherry Coke must prevent UTIs...and colon cancer, heart attacks, ulcerative colitis, and many other diseases I have never had.

And you need to get off of the yogurt kick. I like yogurt. I eat it all the time. I cook with it, make dips, and even marinate lamb in it. It is a very tasty, nutritious food but it has no power to prevent fungal infections or treat them. We do not slather yogurt on our patients with bad athelete's foot of icky, disgusting foot fungus. Nothing treats icky disgusting foot fungus. Even long courses of oral anti-fungals give only iffy results.

I have to repeat this to may patients all the time: There is no magic food you can eat that will make you healthy. You cannot eat your way to good health, in other words. The secret is variety, moderation, and not to obsess about your diet.

Nicely said.

 

[piss ant]

Naturopathy is learned via multiple rotations in a Birkenstock factory, and perfected through carob-rich granola, goat milk, and poor wiping technique.

 

[HumidBeing]

Let's keep our comments civil. Each of us has a right to our own opinions. No matter how strongly we disagree with those of other posters, we do need to keep with the Terms of Service and avoid insulting other members.

 

[lol.psych]

Bull. Nothing is "extremely effective" in preventing UTIs. I betcha' there are no good, well designed studies showing that cranberry juice is or is not effective. People swear by cranberry juice, of course, but if you think about it, I drink a lot of Diet Cherry Coke and I have never had a UTI so Diet Cherry Coke must prevent UTIs...and colon cancer, heart attacks, ulcerative colitis, and many other diseases I have never had.

And you need to get off of the yogurt kick. I like yogurt. I eat it all the time. I cook with it, make dips, and even marinate lamb in it. It is a very tasty, nutritious food but it has no power to prevent fungal infections or treat them. We do not slather yogurt on our patients with bad athelete's foot of icky, disgusting foot fungus. Nothing treats icky disgusting foot fungus. Even long courses of oral anti-fungals give only iffy results.

I have to repeat this to may patients all the time: There is no magic food you can eat that will make you healthy. You cannot eat your way to good health, in other words. The secret is variety, moderation, and not to obsess about your diet.

I was actually referring to vaginal yeast infections (I realize that was really unclear), and involves using plain, unsweetened yogurt with active cultures as a vaginal suppository (just like those monistat creams). Also, yogurt use cannot logically lead to the development of antifungal resistance.
(pumbed or google scholar it)

 

[jsydc]

I think people have failed to address one of the main problems with funding rigorous trials of naturally occurring medicines, which is that you can't patent them. It's all well and good to say "look at the huge market they have and money they make, why don't they validate?", but in reality, the costs of proper study are far too high versus the benefits of something that under the current scheme of regulations can already be sold based on anecdotal evidence alone. Even if the evidence is supportive, that just means hundreds of competitors can spring up overnight and start selling it the same as you.
There is also pressure from drug companies to disenfranchise the use of such alternatives, as they can eat into their revenue. Why put millions into the study of a natural remedy when there is no return in revenues. Why not push a product that will give you a lock on the marketplace instead. Cheap alternatives are bad news for pharmaceuticals.
Instead, they put billions into slight modifications of existing drugs for chronic conditions just before the patent expires and generics eat into their market share, and then say the marginal improvements justify the switch, spend money on direct marketing to both allopathic physicians or even better, the general public to convince them the latest meds are a vast improvement despite the fact that they are still relatively untested compared to the ten year old protocol that does the same thing.

I believe in evidence based medicine, but don't deceive yourself into thinking ND's are the only ones spewing hypocrisy into the gaping mouth of society.

 

[8744]

I think people have failed to address one of the main problems with funding rigorous trials of naturally occurring medicines, which is that you can't patent them. It's all well and good to say "look at the huge market they have and money they make, why don't they validate?", but in reality, the costs of proper study are far too high versus the benefits of something that under the current scheme of regulations can already be sold based on anecdotal evidence alone. Even if the evidence is supportive, that just means hundreds of competitors can spring up overnight and start selling it the same as you.
There is also pressure from drug companies to disenfranchise the use of such alternatives, as they can eat into their revenue. Why put millions into the study of a natural remedy when there is no return in revenues. Why not push a product that will give you a lock on the marketplace instead. Cheap alternatives are bad news for pharmaceuticals.
Instead, they put billions into slight modifications of existing drugs for chronic conditions just before the patent expires and generics eat into their market share, and then say the marginal improvements justify the switch, spend money on direct marketing to both allopathic physicians or even better, the general public to convince them the latest meds are a vast improvement despite the fact that they are still relatively untested compared to the ten year old protocol that does the same thing.

I believe in evidence based medicine, but don't deceive yourself into thinking ND's are the only ones spewing hypocrisy into the gaping mouth of society.

Ah, the conspiracy angle.

 

[jsydc]

Ah, the conspiracy angle.

What you call conspiracy, I call economics. To assume that pharmaceutical companies, as well as naturopaths, are motivated by profit is not a huge stretch of the imagination.

I do think that a lot of alternative medicine is bunk. I just thought I'd point out flaws in the patent system. A patent is supposed to motivate people to come up with bright ideas by allowing them to make money off of an idea.

This system makes it very hard to fund an idea that doesn't guarantee a return on investment (since you can't patent tree bark or rhythmic chanting or gingko whatever), even if it saves the healthcare system (and the taxpayer) wackloads of money.

This is not a capitolism is evil argument, as it does spurn innovation, but if you ask yourself should the NIH be funding research in alternative medicine that could potentially save them a lot of money, I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't. It's in the best interests of medicare and private insurance companies, even if it's not in the short term interests of pharmaceutical companies or allopathic practitioners if the findings are positive, or naturopaths if the findings are negative.

Please enlighten me as to why the government shouldn't be funding the rigorous testing of alternative treatments, or how it is currently profitable for big Pharma or big Nature to do so themselves?

 

[Law2Doc]

What you call conspiracy, I call economics. To assume that pharmaceutical companies, as well as naturopaths, are motivated by profit is not a huge stretch of the imagination.

I do think that a lot of alternative medicine is bunk. I just thought I'd point out flaws in the patent system. A patent is supposed to motivate people to come up with bright ideas by allowing them to make money off of an idea.

This system makes it very hard to fund an idea that doesn't guarantee a return on investment (since you can't patent tree bark or rhythmic chanting or gingko whatever), even if it saves the healthcare system (and the taxpayer) wackloads of money.

This is not a capitolism is evil argument, as it does spurn innovation, but if you ask yourself should the NIH be funding research in alternative medicine that could potentially save them a lot of money, I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't. It's in the best interests of medicare and private insurance companies, even if it's not in the short term interests of pharmaceutical companies or allopathic practitioners if the findings are positive, or naturopaths if the findings are negative.

Please enlighten me as to why the government shouldn't be funding the rigorous testing of alternative treatments, or how it is currently profitable for big Pharma or big Nature to do so themselves?

I think that even if everything you say is true, you are missing the big picture. Arguing the pharmaceutical industry is bad does not support the argument that naturopaths are good. People die from using unproven remedies in lieu of proven ones. People do not die from using more expensive patented remedies. They get poor, but they will live. So pharmaceutical companies may bilk people, but naturopaths may (if they keep their patients away from proven cures) bury them.

There are actually quite a lot of avenues for research funding of things like yogurt and cranberry juice because the companies producing these things (Dannon, Seagrams, ConAgra etc) are not small players and honestly their coffers make some of the smaller pharmaceutical endeavors seem pretty puny. A variety of non-FDA approved supplements are also marketed by fairly large supplement companies that could do research if they saw value in it. And for the less corporate produced supplements, there are plenty of academic and public sector funding sources that would allow an academic to run a double blind study on a particular product. And the fact that naturopaths charge money to "prescribe" a particular remedy means there is, in fact, money in it, patent or no patent. Many many medicines allopaths prescribe every day are not currently under patent, and yet quite profitable. Some are derived from nature. Heck, physicians make money prescribing iron, zinc and other elemental supplements and those in theory come right out of the ground. But there are empirical studies showing that your body needs those, and why.

So yeah, I agree with Panda that you are a bit overboard in your pharmaceutical conspiracy theories. Pharmaceutical companies usually try to sell a good product -- but they are for profit and so they charge dearly for their product. Part of their issue is that research is a multi-billion dollar endeavor, and each profitable drug has to fund countless unprofitable dead ends. Doesn't mean the expensive medicine isn't the best or only game in town. Doesn't mean you should allow someone to try cheaper and totally ineffective or unproven treatments instead.

 

[bcat85]

What you call conspiracy, I call economics. To assume that pharmaceutical companies, as well as naturopaths, are motivated by profit is not a huge stretch of the imagination.

I do think that a lot of alternative medicine is bunk. I just thought I'd point out flaws in the patent system. A patent is supposed to motivate people to come up with bright ideas by allowing them to make money off of an idea.

This system makes it very hard to fund an idea that doesn't guarantee a return on investment (since you can't patent tree bark or rhythmic chanting or gingko whatever), even if it saves the healthcare system (and the taxpayer) wackloads of money.

This is not a capitolism is evil argument, as it does spurn innovation, but if you ask yourself should the NIH be funding research in alternative medicine that could potentially save them a lot of money, I can't think of a reason why they shouldn't. It's in the best interests of medicare and private insurance companies, even if it's not in the short term interests of pharmaceutical companies or allopathic practitioners if the findings are positive, or naturopaths if the findings are negative.

Please enlighten me as to why the government shouldn't be funding the rigorous testing of alternative treatments, or how it is currently profitable for big Pharma or big Nature to do so themselves?

Because... you see... they don't actually work, nor do they have any evidence that they work. Heck.. why shouldn't the government fund rigorous testing of whether glueing a watermelon to your windshield improves gas mileage? that could save people TONS of money!

 

[Pedsbro]

Because... you see... they don't actually work, nor do they have any evidence that they work. Heck.. why shouldn't the government fund rigorous testing of whether glueing a watermelon to your windshield improves gas mileage? that could save people TONS of money!

😆

 

[45408]

I have to repeat this to may patients all the time: There is no magic food you can eat that will make you healthy. You cannot eat your way to good health, in other words. The secret is variety, moderation, and not to obsess about your diet.

It's too bad the reverse isn't true. There is most definitely magic food that will make you sick. Beer, liverwurst, brats, fried chicken.....

 

[jsydc]

Because... you see... they don't actually work, nor do they have any evidence that they work. Heck.. why shouldn't the government fund rigorous testing of whether glueing a watermelon to your windshield improves gas mileage? that could save people TONS of money!

Is there evidence that they don't actually work? If there is then I'd agree with your assessment.

If we have a huge population of people already using alternative medicine to mine data retrospectively to come up with some sliver of evidence suggesting that some things (most definitely not all!) might work or at least help in some small way, that should be basis enough to merit proper trials of at least some therapies. You can also use retrospective studies to debunk clearly harmful alternative therapies, which is also a very good thing.

If you better regulate naturopaths and restrict their prescription of alternate therapies proven to harm or proven useless, then it can be transitioned into a legitimate evidence based practice.

To me, this is sensible. At least as sensible as high throughput screening of drug candidates in a throw every combination we can think of at the wall and see what sticks mentality that underlies current pharmaceutical development.

I do kind of feel like eating a watermelon now though.