The terrible harm that alternative medicine can do

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/jeremy-laurance-the-terrible-harm-that-alternative-medicine-can-do-1864772.html

"...

Advocates of homeopathy, nutritional therapy and similar treatments often promote their remedies with the promise that, unlike conventional medicine, they are natural, kind and can do no harm. If only it were true.

The former South African Health Minister, Manto Tshabalala-Msimang, who died before Christmas, advocated "natural" treatments for HIV based on beetroot, wild garlic and the African potato. Together with Thabo Mbeki, the former president, she was chiefly responsible for the African National Congress government's delaying for years the distribution of anti-retroviral drugs to patients with HIV and Aids. While Mr Mbeki publicly questioned the link between the virus and the disease, Dr Beetroot advised patients the cure lay in the cooking pot. Their policies, according to a Harvard University study, cost the lives of more than 300,000 people. Who would have thought beetroot could kill on such a scale?

...

Three years ago, a survey of ten clinics by Sense about Science found they offered homeopathic pills claimed to prevent not just malaria but other diseases including typhoid, dengue fever and yellow fever. The Hospital for Tropical Diseases warned at the time that it had treated people who thought they were protected and had contracted malaria.

One of the most memorable quacks I have come across in the last decade was Professor Charles Ssali, an ENT surgeon who qualified in England before returning to his native Uganda to "do research" into Aids. I visited his clinic in Kampala where he was handing out Mariandina, a concoction of vitamins made in Greenford, Middlesex, at £60 a month, four times the average monthly salary. He claimed to have treated 17,000 patients and obtained an 80 per cent cure rate. The "medicine" was refused a licence by the Ugandan government but he later promoted it in Britain, earning himself a rebuke from the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, of which he had been a member, which posted a note on its website suspending him. Professor Ssali died in 2004.

..."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Addendum:

Malaria & homeopathy
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/71

-------------------------------------------------------------------------


When will we learn to stop following so many loud ducks?

most of those, you can pretty much say or do anything you like, as long as you don't actively cause harm, or claim it will actually do something. the only drugs reviewed by the FDA are those that claim to actually do something, a direct connection to taking it.

http://www.hylands.com/

Are you telling me they are not claiming their homeopathic offerings will actually do something?

And have you never heard of NCCAM? http://nccam.nih.gov/

and always mention that it 'relieves symptoms' not addresses the underlying cause.

and yes, I know of NICCAM. what's the point?

That's money that is not going to study things with a stronger evidence base that the science may lead to cures and benefits. Thus, the taxpayers are on the hook for something that does not have to meet the same standards as "non-alternative" research. That's unethical, to me.

And that fine line is pure BS. It's time to regulate.

Most homeopathic treatments are useless. But that doesn't mean they all are. I have no problem with research money being used to study things that are widely believed to have value, even if it is only to debunk them. Research for research's sake isn't a waste, you never know what you'll find.

Thanks.

That condition being dehydration, of course. That's pretty much it.

Of course we all know after the studies find that homeopathy doesn't do a damned thing all the people pushing it will stop selling water as medicine, right? Of course they will. ;)

http://www.brooklyncommunityacupuncture.com/faq.html

* Chronic pain
* Musculoskeletal disorders
* Arthritis
* Fibromyalgia
* Women's health
* Diabetes
* Headache & migraines
* Post-stroke syndromes
* Insomnia & depression
* Hypertension
* Digestive disorders
* Cancer management
* Allergies & asthma
* Colds & influenza
* Immune system disorders
* Addictions
* and more - ask us!

What is the evidence base for these treatments. (I know there is some base for some acupuncture.) But could an MD make such claims with such a small evidence base?

But they can't say 'accupuncture will help your X' they can say 'compounds in green tea have been shown to reduce heart attacks and stroke' they can't say ' this green tea will help you'.

As you said, there is some basis for acupuncture for treating some conditions. It is the lack of any real study in the area of alternative health remedies (and, no, I'm not talking about homeopathy) that allows the quacks in the industry to continue to make whatever claims. If it's not studied you can say it's not proven but you can not say it's disproven.

Interesting whenever I think of fibromyalgia. I've had it for over 20 years-since before it had a name. Once it had a name most of the doctors in the US believed it didn't exist-no study, they just didn't believe it. It was a doctor from England who first diagnosed me and told me most US doctors believed it wasn't real. He then told me of the studies done in England and what they did know and how much they still could not explain. Of course, now that some outrageously expensive drug has been developed to treat it, it must be real! Imagine that! Now that they've discovered the presence of the xmrv retrovirus infection in a high percentage of CFS/Fibromyalgia patients it is being studied and taken seriously. How funny is that for me? I was telling doctors for years that it acted like a viral infection. The closest we got before was at the beginning when they though EBV might be the culprit. Then they found FMG patients did not have EBV in numbers greater than the general population. I always thought EBV was involved but was shut down by doctors on this. Now, they find xmrv and are studying its ability to reactivate dormant viruses in people such as EBV. But anyone who postulates anything that hasn't been proven yet is just 'woo.' Not even an acknowledgement that it might be but we don't know, yet-it's just 'woo.' A lot of things people once labeled 'woo' are now proven. And a lot of sacred cows of scientific dogma and drugs developed and tested in double blind placebo controlled studies have been proven just as deadly as any alternative therapies out there.

American medicine suffers from a horrible arrogance that won't allow them to admit to the existence of anything they don't understand. This hurts the cause of science. Those things they refuse to look at can't be proven, can't be disproven. This attitude here does as much to let the wild claims persist as anything else. It probably sets us back on some discoveries that would be useful. And it allows the quacks in the industry to keep on with unproven claims.

No drug for fibromyalgia=no such thing as fibromyalgia

Drug for fibromyalgia=fibromyalgia big problem

About sums up the AMERICAN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM.

That's a load of crap.

n/t

:rofl:

your posts are funny too - a great source of amusement, for sure!

:rofl:

Actually, I guess it's not hard to convince you of much.

:rofl: :rofl:

you are funny...rofl

I think there is a homeopathic remedy for this obsession of yours :-) It's called Calms, by Hylands. It might help with what's ailing you :-)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/

PS -- http://www.theonion.com/content/amvo/studies_show_alternative_medicine

but thanks anyway...I do what works for me :hi:

You've made that clear. And it's currently legal.

Ignoring the harm of homeopathy is unethical, however. Apparently ethics are not something that concern you.

I'd recommend spending some time here: http://whatstheharm.net/

your opinion about the "harm" regarding homeopathy...really...I think you would be much less stressed out about it :-)

And yes - I will spend money on it because it, well, works for me!

And then you can save a little.

And I'm over-dramatizing anything. That's your attempt to justify a scam.

"There are no studies that proven it does or doesn't work"

Even if there are studies, woowoo people will still believe in it.

rather than badgering others?

Remember: I'm not the one coming here trying to defend treatments that have little to no evidence base. You are.

In before the brave defenders of everything "alternative".

:kick:

:hi:

But in this case, it appears that by giving this thread an unrec, you are promoting sick practices that lead to huge numbers of deaths. That just seems wrong. I guess I'm wondering how anyone can justify it. It's kind of like giving an unrec to the silent thread for the earthquake victims.

caused by your regaled scientific medical industrial complex?

Sorry, but not everything works for everything, nor everyone, nor everywhere. Whenever health, or lack thereof, is involved, shit happens.

That does not justify pushing quack remedies.

Try again.

I haven't seen a dr. since 1990, and I've used self taught homeopathy and ingredients not packaged by others in capsules or otherwise for numerous issues and illnesses. Except for an issue I posted about last week, CA_MRSA, which is nearly healed up as we speak, I'm healthier now than ever.

However I'm not suggesting anyone to turn from medicine as you describe it, but many of us do find very reasonable solutions with natural ingredients.

Just for an example, how many on here do you suppose, either legally or not, have been using marijuana for a variety of issues? For me it is to stop cluster headaches and maintain a weight over 95#s, though I still only manage about 105# on a fat day. Perfectly natural, non-medical solution that most people see a use for regarding at one person in their community, family, or friends.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/108

http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/pdf/SenseAboutHomeopathy.pdf

Nor am I calling marijuana alternative. It's funny how things lose that label when they've been proven to work.

or as painlessly as taking a pill (oops, I forget, so many pills have side effects meaning you have to take more pills for those discomforts).

For example the kitchen is full of antibiotics and chemicals with provable characteristics.

Yogurt is an excellent solution for yeast infections for example, if caught early enough. One thing I've learned after going natural and personally responsible for my health, one has to stay on top of things, can't let them get out of hand.

Lemon juice compresses overnight are an excellent solution for Hidradenitis suppurativa which is a probably genetic vaginal skin disorder.

Sorry, these are not placebo effects. Either one has a yeast infection, and us women know when we have a yeast infection, or you don't. Placebo won't help.

Same with Hidradenitis suppurativa, it's not like one could imagine one, trust me on that.

Thanks.

to natural solutions that won't bring in profits for the medical society. Naive much?

The biggest issue I've had is in diagnosis, not solutions. It is often quite difficult to diagnose correctly the first time round, . . .oh, wait, doctors make this mistake all the time too. Prior to giving up on drs. I was misdiagnosed with five separate issues. It doesn't help that I'm a woman, (read by drs. as hypochondriac).

In the decades since I've walked away I've "cured" my deep cystic acne, resolved chronic yeast infections, found out I didn't have herpes (I knew I couldn't have herpes, but drs. insisted and didn't test) but had what is mentioned above and found a solution, no more cluster headaches or extreme pain narcotics that went with, chronic ear wax and related drainage, . . . and so much more that has happened since including injuries and illnesses.

I know I won't change your mind, but your disrespect based on medicals not doing peer reviews is just plain naive. It took years and thousands of people fighting over marijuana to get those peer reviews. No one is interested in peer reviewing lemon juice, or yogurt, no money in it.

We have much to learn about the body and disease. Duh.

Being diagnosed by quacks isn't going to increase the odds of a correct diagnosis.

Now, I guess you can't answer my request. So I suppose you'll go off in another direction or just ignore me.

whether it be natural or medical, a solution has to work for me. Most of the medical choices made on my behalf caused more harm and discomfort than they helped. Not all meds work for all people. And as mentioned most of the diagnoses were careless and wrong when I went to drs.

I don't get diagnosed by quacks, nor drs. I get educated, sometimes I'm wrong for a while, but sooner or later, I must figure it out, or I wouldn't have solved so many of my own issues.


As far as ignoring you, I don't put anyone on ignore. On the other hand I'll likely ignore you from here on this topic because you are rude, patronizing, and wrong when it comes to my experiences. I know the improvement in my life since I swore off the medical society, you being a jerk isn't going to change that.

which I addressed. Not to your liking, but it is addressed.

You're treating yourself with placebos, and you're pretending to be "your own expert."

Sorry, I've lived too long to buy such nonsense.

That something that hasn't been yet been proven to your satisfaction is a placebo.

Can you support that?

How can you claim that something is the placebo effect when it has not even been tested in trials?

That's basic.

Your illogical attempt at forcing others to prove a negative shows how little you either understand or care about actual science.

From a claim that everything that hasn't been tested is a "placebo".

In fact, that claim makes no sense at all, sans some sort of trial.

:hi:

The majority of what has been tested has been generally shown to be no better than placebo. What hasn't been tested is often stuff that its practitioners don't want to be studies.

Now why is that?

You keep making claims without evidence. I thought you promoted "science."

Are you saying no studies about this are ever posted at DU?

I could waste my time, reposting stuff, but, you and your pals have made it clear that you don't care, so why should I?

Why should I post what you already know? Intellectual dishonesty aimed at making someone else spend time finding current links is simply game playing.

On edit, here's a few bites...


http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=258

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2996

http://hawk-handsaw.blogspot.com/2009/01/yet-one-more-radically-pointless.html

that studies are not wanted?

And, really, a negative study on one substance does NOT mean that some other substance doesn't work. In fact, it doesn't even mean the first one doesn't work, only that it is not proven to work in that particular protocol. You really can't make generalizations from a negative study on one substance, saying that another one won't work for something different.

Really, again, this is not at all logical.

That's exactly what I figured. I post some examples, and you rant about how those are only examples. You want me to prove a negative, because you can't prove a positive. That's what is not logical.

Now, if you haven't read the excuses from homeopaths and others trying to say that their treatments can't be studied, that's not my fault. But I'm tired of playing your games. If you can't discuss this with intellectual honesty, then I'm not going to waste my time, anymore.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3344

Then you talk about homeopathy.

Since when has NCCAM studied homeopathy? Maybe they have, but if so, it is very little.

If you are talking about NCCAM, then I naturally assume that you mostly mean studies on vitamins and herbs. But then you say most of them don't want studies? I don't know anyone that doesn't want studies on vitamins and herbs. They may disagree on the various methodologies needed to appropriately study them, but I have NEVER heard people say they don't want studies. As far as I am concerned, a negative study offers about as much information as a positive one. It makes no difference. You learn something from all of them.

As for homeopathy people often not wanting studies, that may be true. But that is an entirely separate subject than studies that NCCAM has done.

Since you refuse to do anything but pick one little bite and respond to that, while ignoring the whole of the post, I'm done with this discussion. It appears that you know nothing about NCCAM or much of anything on this issue, anyway.

Bye.

I love your "Bye"s.

Much better than your "red herring"s.

:)

You're probably not even looking at the keyboard, just pushing a button that lobs a list from Randi's site.

And now you want to attack me for seeing that?

:rofl:

:scared::freak:

Better Today has answered you and you are dismissive and insulting. Don't play as if you are taking the high road. :thumbsdown:

"You seem to think that there's incentive in giving any credence to natural solutions that won't bring in profits for the medical society. Naive much?":

Anecdotes do not suffice to support snake oil, or any other type of medicine.

That's not hard to understand.

you're not really talking about alternative medicine. Each has been shown to help the conditions you're referring to. We know how they work and how they help.

When people refer to alternative medicine, they're talking about homeopaths trying to cure things with water, chiropractors insisting they can cure things that have nothing to do with the spine, colloidal silver, acupuncture, faith healers, crystal peddlers, etc. All of which claim to be able to cure absolutely anything and none of whom can prove they can cure anything at all.

know that it includes nutrition and use of herbs and other natural products, internally or topically. Not sure where you are getting your misinformed "correct" definition from. That will surely hobble you in constructive discussion of the topic.

Also mistaken is tossing in "faith healers, crystal peddlers, etc." for the sole purpose of discrediting alternative medicine, which is much broader and diverse than your hippie cliches.

"All of which claim to be able to cure absolutely anything and none of whom can prove they can cure anything at all."

One "proof" is what works for people -- which the sciencyists vehemently discount; any actual personal experience is rejected by them. One Major aspect of alternative medicine is PREVENTION. And many people turn to and are HELPED and healed by alternative medicine when conventional medicine and conventional practitioners abandon them.

If you're not, then your post just went down in flames.

This is basic logic here.

And frauds in general is to point out all the other frauds while claiming they, and only they, have the secret to (insert desire here).
It's kind of a bizarre variation on the True Scotsman fallacy. "Sure I believe in demons, but you'd have to be crazy to believe in fairies. Don't lump me in with THOSE people." Even though it's obvious to anyone that isn't emotionally invested in a specific group that they're all pretty much the same, people within those groups will all deny it and call one another all manner of names.
A fun thought experiment for believers in woodoo is to ask which altie stuff works and what doesn't. Then ask what they're basing it on. The result usually looks something like it does when you ask religion X why religion Y is wrong.

So homeopathy works but faith healing and crystals don't? Where's the evidence for that? I see you cite the illustrious "People say it works for them.", but the same is said of faith healers, crystal sellers, psychics, astrologers, dowsers, past life regression therapists, wizards, witches, demonologists, COS satanists, breatharians, shamans, *deep breath* astral walkers, mediums, tarot readers, herbal healers, houngan/mambo, alphabiotics, kinesiologist, cupping, candling, leeching, escharotics, exorcists, iridology, feng shui, hypnotist, and so on. (Let's pretend that's an exhaustive list. There's probably easily over a thousand more things that could go in it, but if I go looking things up I'll be here all night.)

So what makes homeopathy different from those things?

It isn't the fact that there's science behind it. The people that practice it like to spout lots of physics terms they picked up, but it's obvious to anyone that's actually studied physics they've never actually read a textbook. At best they skimmed the index. Quantum is likely to be mentioned several times, not a single mention of which will use it correctly. Their math is crappy too. They attribute things to water molecules that we know water doesn't do.

It isn't effectiveness. It's been shown over and over to be no more effective at treating anything than placebo.

It isn't logic, either. By the logic of homeopathy, every drop of water on the planet has come in contact with every substance on the planet at some time or another. So technically all the water in the world is already a homeopathic medicine by virtue of existing.

As I pointed out, "People say it works for them." isn't really a valid reason to accept something. People say that about *everything*.
So what empirical evidence is there that homeopathy is any different from leaving sweetened milk out for the fairies and showing the evil eye to ward off curses? Remember, if anecdotes work for homeopathy, they work for all that other stuff too. That's why scientists tend to dismiss anecdotal claims: They can't be falsified, they're based on a possibly flawed recounting of a possibly flawed perception of an event, and they're used to support absolutely everything.

Thanks for adding it to the thread.

"Another quite common tactic from the alt med crowd. And frauds in general is to point out all the other frauds while claiming they, and only they, have the secret to (insert desire here)."

That has nothing to do with what I posted. However, it is you who claimed you and only you, have the definition of ________:

"When people refer to alternative medicine, they're talking about homeopaths trying to cure things with water, chiropractors insisting they can cure things that have nothing to do with the spine, colloidal silver, acupuncture, faith healers, crystal peddlers, etc."

I don't know where these toxic attitudes come from or why they all have the same set of talking points, bullshit games and hostile behavior, but the fact that you misread -- intentionally or not -- my post so badly and continue spouting false accusations, makes the rest of your post unreadable. You -- and all the other people who act this way, incapable of anything resembling discussoin -- are not credible or worth the time.

WOW!

:crazy:

So you accuse someone of having "Toxic attitudes" "talking points" "bullshit games" "hostile behavior". "You will not challenge my belief in FAIRIES!" Sounds a lot like some other people we talk about here.

One thing about "Talking points". Science is wonderful in the fact that everyone can do EXACTLY the same thing as the scientist. You aren't doing to hear 30 explanations on how atoms get together. There are 2. Ionic and covalent. and covalent is just a stronger ionic. THATS why they sound like talking points, when they aren't. It's science.

Can you prove I didn't?

for MRSA?

Pray tell, how did you diagnose MRSA as opposed to some other infectious agent?

and treatments that allow people to live reasonable lives when quack "cures" would have left them disabled or dead?

I didn't think so.

Post of the day.

is made, it's alternatives cannot be effectively judged.

(_|_)

Alternative medicine has its place, the placebo effect is real.

However, trying to use it for anything potentially fatal is insane. Pushing its use for anything potentially fatal is criminal in this country and should be elsewhere.

Mbeki should be in prison for the holocaust he caused South African HIV patients.

FDA blessing is not the be all - end all, but some of the crap passing as alternative medicine is deceitful and lethal.

Both have their places and both have value.

Suggesting that either traditional or alternative treatments are "always dangerous" or "always appropriate" is foolish.


...as any responsible practitioner of alternative therapy will confirm.

Traditional medicine is strictly regulated. It's difficult to perpetuate a scam.

Alternative medicine is almost completely unregulated...which draws a lot of snake oil salesmen.

is no more intelligent than taking prescriptions without doing your own research.

Carelessness and mistakes abound in health care whether medical or natural.

It's all water. Just water.
You can't overdose, it's water. Underdosing isn't possible either because it's water. Quality control happened back at the water treatment plant. How can someone be careless or make a mistake when all they're doing is filling a bottle of water? Spilling it? Dropping the bottle and cutting themselves on the shards?

then legitimate practitioners would call for oversight.

Right?

Why wouldn't they want to keep the snake oil folks out?

According to Dr. Barbara Starfield's 2000 report, the medical system the third leading cause of death in the US, behind heart disease and cancer.

Put your money where your mouth is and show me the stats that put alternative medicine anywhere near that figure even without "evidence".


Interview via: http://jonrappoport.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/an-exclusive-interview-with-dr-barbara-starfield-medically-caused-death-in-america/

Q:Have health agencies of the federal government consulted with you on ways to mitigate the effects of the US medical system?

A:NO.


Q: Since the FDA approves every medical drug given to the American people, and certifies it as safe and effective, how can that agency remain calm about the fact that these medicines are causing 106,000 deaths per year?

A: Even though there will always be adverse events that cannot be anticipated, the fact is that more and more unsafe drugs are being approved for use. Many people attribute that to the fact that the pharmaceutical industry is (for the past ten years or so) required to pay the FDA for reviews—which puts the FDA into a untenable position of working for the industry it is regulating. There is a large literature on this.

Q: Aren’t your 2000 findings a severe indictment of the FDA and its standard practices?

A: They are an indictment of the US health care industry: insurance companies, specialty and disease-oriented medical academia, the pharmaceutical and device manufacturing industries, all of which contribute heavily to re-election campaigns of members of Congress. The problem is that we do not have a government that is free of influence of vested interests. Alas, is a general problem of our society—which clearly unbalances democracy.

Q: Can you offer an opinion about how the FDA can be so mortally wrong about so many drugs?

A: Yes, it cannot divest itself from vested interests. (Again, a large literature about this, mostly unrecognized by the people because the industry-supported media give it no attention.


Q: Do medical schools in the US, and intern/residency programs in hospitals, offer significant “primary care” physician training and education?

A: NO. Some of the most prestigious medical teaching institutions do not even have family physician training programs family medicine departments. The federal support for teaching institutions greatly favors specialist residencies, because it is calculated on the basis of hospital beds.


Q: Are you aware of any systematic efforts, since your 2000 JAMA study was published, to remedy the main categories of medically caused deaths in the US?

A: No systematic efforts; however, there have been a lot of studies. Most of them indicate higher rates than I calculated.


Q: 106,000 people die as a result of CORRECTLY prescribed medicines. I believe that was your point in your 2000 study. Overuse of a drug or inappropriate use of a drug would not fall under the category of “correctly prescribed.” Therefore, people who die after “overuse” or “inappropriate use” would be IN ADDITION TO the 106,000 and would fall into another or other categories.

A: Appropriate’ means that it is not counter to regulations. That does not mean that the drugs do not have adverse effects.

Read the thread before posting BS, please.

Your headline verbatim: The terrible harm that alternative medicine can do.

I'm asking you AGAIN: As opposed to modern medicine? SHOW ME THE STATS! Or as a refreshing change of pace, you and your fundamentalist FDA lovers can Stop Telling False Untruths.

Both systems have their flaws. There are systems of alternative care that have been studied in backward-assed countries like France, England, Belgium, Canada...you know those places we think have such sucky health care we want to model our system after theirs.. and you know what? They don't seem to have the same attitude as you do. They've funded studies, they've drawn their conclusions. And it seems to be in direct opposition to yours. Yet somehow, in spite of all the flaws with modern medicine, seemingly no stats to back up a measurement against alternative medicine, and all those scientists, researchers and medical professionals from all those other countries, YOU KNOW BETTER.

Wow. Quite a set you've got there. Are they brass?

Without it you've got nothing.

Do you understand what a red herring is?

Comparing 100,000 deaths to saving millions of lives on a daily basis for modern medicine, vs giving out placebos to healthy people.

Every hear of small pox? "Of all those infected, 20–60%—and over 80% of infected children—died from the disease." Modern medicine wiped it out.

Not Chinese, not homeopathy, not any "alternative" crap. Modern medicine.

Modern medicine score: 5 billion on this planet

What would you consider the score for "alternative medicine?"

You can make a mistake when you're ACTUALLY trying to cure someone.

try to provide a balanced perspective and voice of reason to this thread!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111

it's true, this OP is flamebait and look at how fast it turned into Either/Or

"Perspective of the researchers?" Sorry, but that's going into the GW denier arena.

The evidence needs to come to the fore, and the citizenry needs to start protecting itself from more than "Big Pharma," and lord knows I have plenty of criticism to that end. Too many at DU choose to ignore evidence and the lack of evidence when it comes to basic health care offerings. That's not the fault of this thread, or of me, or the fault of science. We can't continue to ignore the science while more and more of us go down roads that can lead to people taking homeopathy to "protect" themselves from malaria. It's gone too far.

Attempting to indict all of homeopathy or alternative medicine is weak.

"We can't continue to ignore the science while more and more of us go down roads that can lead to people taking homeopathy to "protect" themselves from malaria."

"Us"?

:shrug:

You can't just repeat yourself. (Well, I guess you can, if you want.) Try responding to my actual posts.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7450952

or this one...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7449395&mesg_id=7449395

The second link concerns the increase in the suicide rates among vets.I don't see how that would be flame bait or inappropriate in this forum unless we have a group here I don't know about who is pro-verteran suicide. I know the vet center was very alarmed when I called about my Viet Nam vet husband who is deteriorating emotionally since our lives fell apart with the economy. They seem to be very worried about any combat vets right now who are trying to weather the storms and those who have been deployed repeatedly have got to be at risk.

It's about suicide. That's very emotional. Oh, and it's a health care matter. So it must belong in the health care forum.

Hey, your rules.

And that is of general concern just as funding for taking care of our soldiers wounded in battle would be. Has implications for spending and our military activities around the world. I believe all those have significant political relevance. Or do we have a group here that is supportive of veteran's suicide who will be offended by trying to bring the problems to light?

We are in the midst of a huge health care debate, with some legislators trying to sneak in requirements for snake oil treatments. Further, taxpayers are on the hook for NCCAM studies. Thus, this has every bit the relevance that thread had.

Thanks!

serve but carry on.

labeled 'alternative.' It is not all the same. Many drugs we use today came from plants and cooperation with botanists. Taxol was discovered in a cooperative effort between a chemist and a botanist. There are some who would call that 'woo.' There are natural substances out there that warrant some study. There is plenty of quackery in alternative health but it is not all quackery. I don't believe homeopathy and nutritional support belong in the same category.

The reluctance of science to explore this, I believe, keeps us from some discoveries that would be useful but there is something of a bias against studying those things from which no one can profit.

I had a rather 'woo' doctor tell me when I was a teenager that he thought stomach ulcers were caused by an infection. My mother thought that was the stupidest thing she ever heard. At that time they still told ulcer patients to drink milk. Hell, when I was in nursing school we were still doing that. How did he know? I have no idea but it sure was an eye opener when we discovered H. Pylori.

So, it is the implication that anything people call 'alternative' should be avoided and no study made of it is counterproductive in my mind. But you are certainly entitled to see it differently.

I get it.

participated in helping to conduct many human trials of anti-cancer agents. So, it would seem your conclusion is not evidence based.

I object to bias which says anything you decide is 'woo' does not deserve study. You seem to believe that you are the qualified arbiter of 'woo.'

There is much out there that is quackery but there are substances in the natural world that are deserving of some investigation.

Taxol, as I said, was discovered in a cooperative effort between a chemist and a botanist. They studied over 1000 ethanolic extracts of plants before hitting on the anti-tumor activity of Camptotheca acuminata. The USDA was not interested in the research and it was on hold for some time. I was an RN when Taxol was approved by the FDA in the early 90's. I believe the initial sample in which the chemist saw the anti-tumor activity was sent to him around 1958. Over 30 years later Taxol was born and is now in use treating breast cancer and AIDS related Kaposi's sarcoma.

I don't object to science at all. I object to contempt prior to investigation. Nothing can be proven if it hasn't been studied. It's easy enough to say something hasn't been proven. If it hasn't been studied that just means it hasn't been studied. It does not mean it has not been disproven.

Your posts on this thread speak for themselves. And that includes this incredibly dishonest post. You are putting words in my mouth. Why is it that the same tactics are used over and over again by people who don't want to understand science?

everything out of hand, calling it 'woo,' and refusing to study it. I don't know what tactic used over and over again you refer to but I do think closed minds are unscientific. There is a fatty acid being used to treat diabetes in Germany that is effective and safer than our cardiotoxic Actos and Avandia. It is used as a first line drug for diabetes. Obviously, it does not work for everyone but nothing does. They try it with type II diabetes before prescribing the more toxic drugs. It is sold here as a nutitional supplement but not in doses likely to help. It, actually, is beneficial to the heart unlike the oral hypoglycemics we use as first line drugs and is now being studied there for its effect on diabetic neuropathy. I took care of far too many diabetics with CHF and we constantly battled the fluid retention which resulted from their Actos or Avandia requiring more diuretics and higher doses of ACE inhibitors. It was a vicious cycle. There are no such problems with the patients being treated with the fatty acid I mentioned in Germany. Why is no one here looking into this? Well, obviously, it can't be patented and no one can profit.

Closed minds do not lead to scientific discovery. Hell, if it were up to you we wouldn't be studying xmrv's role in CFS/fibromyalgia now. We'd all be suffering while you and the closed minded doctors of the US called us lazy and those looking for treatments for us would be accused of practicing 'woo.' I'm sure there is plenty of 'woo,' out there but I do not consider you the final word on what is 'woo' and what is not.

Perhaps where I have worked and participated in research is not important but I am getting suspicious that where you work may have everything to do with your bias.

You are not discussing anything with me. You are ranting against a poster of your own creation.

Bye! I am done with your dishonest nonsense.

No facts, no proof of the dishonesty of anything I have presented, just your biased assessment of the other person's replies and bail. I am not responding to a poster of my own creation but to one who rants against 'alternative health' without distinguishing any difference between homeopathy and the study of plant materials or nutritional support. No acknowledgement that disciplines you dismiss as 'woo woo' have ever led to the development of any life saving treatments.

Nothing more than what we have come to expect of you. Farewell.

That poster just wastes time and says nothing.

WOW!

:rofl:

I love it!

:rofl:

Thanks!

Obviously you deeply believe what you post is always the objective truth and the last word on the matter. Your sincere belief does not, nevertheless, make it true. You are not the sole arbiter of objective 'fact.' Your opinion is yours and you are certainly entitled to it. It does not mean others will always agree with you. It does seem this is a problem for you.

:rofl:

:rofl:

:rofl:

You and your pals have done nothing but attack me personally because you can't offer any facts or information.

Keep up the juvenile crap, but maybe you should point your finger back at yourself.

I have said you show a decided bias and an inability to to see any value in areas you have decided are 'woo,' and that you seem to believe you are the sole arbiter of what constitutes 'woo,' but I see that more as an observation than an attack. I also do not see you addressing points I make in my responses such as the discovery of Taxol that was made by a chemist and botanist working together studying substances out of the natural world and weather that study would have been considered 'woo,' when it started. I think most here can see who does not acknowledge the other person's points or even try to refute them. We just see the same old responses:

"you're posts are dishonest"
"juvenile"
"woo woo"

No facts, no discussion. The poster is dishonest or not making sense or 'woo woo' just because you say so. Not compelling, I'm afraid.

You have put words in my mouth, as you do again in this post. You then attack me as something I'm not. That is a personal attack.

Bye.

Now, if my debate style was like yours this is where I would just insert the ROFL icon and be done with it. However, it is not my style. I have put no words in your mouth. I have observed that it appears that you lump anything remotely labeled as 'alternative' into the trash heap of 'woo woo.' If that is not true you certainly have had every opportunity to clarify your position. I do make observations about the way you tend to debate which is to just keep calling people dishonest or what not and never address the substance of their posts. My favorite from you (not yet seen in this thread) is when you don't address any points the poster makes and then accuse them of being "all over the place," or "not making sense," as you said to me in another of your flamefests. It has not a scintilla of honesty, whatsoever.

So, I'll say Bye, too but I doubt you mean it any more this time than the last time you said it upthread.

You love to make excuses for yourself while bashing others, but that's really all you do.

I say bye, and I may come back. I started the thread, and so I probably will. I glad you obsessed on that, however. At least you obsessed on something different for a short period of time.

:popcorn:

Yeah, I like popcorn, too!!!

... which is nominally labeled 'alternative' as 'woo.' I do not subscribe to much that is out there but have pointed out some areas that are worthy of study and some that did, in the past, lead to some breakthroughs. If you do not care to address those points, that is your right. But it is not bashing or a personal attack to make that observation.

Of course, that is a critique of a poster of your own making, as I have noted repeatedly as well.

I'm sure you will repeat one of your other bites of nonsense. I'll just keep laughing.

:rofl:

what is your point?

:rofl:

will let others come to their own conclusions about supporting evidence for claims made. I'll let it go at that as you and I will, obviously, not agree. I'm okay with that.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=480

And have a look see at the bottom of this thread.

unrec'd for that reason

:rofl:

WOW!

:crazy:

Ibuprofen several times a day. After years (yipes--but we didn't have the internets then)I started getting peeling skin, like dandruff in my eyebrows, and pink, flakey skin at the corners of my mouth. I just went into my bathroom, being of the Windex school of medicine, I decided I would put everything in the bathroom on it, one day at a time, then if I couldn't find a cure, I would proceed to the kitchen and start applying mustard, mayonnaise, jam, peanut butter, and whatever I could think of till cured. I did not intend to live like that. In the bathroom that day, first I spied Caladryl. It was skin-colored and would not look too unsightly at work in the cubicle, well anyway it beat the hell out of peanut butter or mustard. The condition was cleared up in an hour. Completely. Astonished, I called my sister, who is further along in the Windex school than me, and she said. Caladryl has benedryl in it. You have an allergy. Benedryl is good for allergies. So then I started trying to think what I was allergic to, and voila! Hadda be the ibuprofen.

alternative medicine or homeopathy itself.

...so I'd say it condemns homeopathy, and the great majority of alternative medicine, which is practiced sans an evidence base.

If you want to promote black and white thinking and false assumptions based on extreme and rare anecdotes, you have succeeded.

So where's the evidence base that proves homeopathy shouldn't be sent to the dustbin of snake oil treatments? And where's the evidence for the great majority of so called "alternative medicine?"

::eyes:

Only his way of thinking is okay with him, which seems to be the whole black and white, natural is black/bad and medical is white/good, completely blind faith.

I would venture to guess HuckaB is a male who has had little or no exposure to medical issues for himself or his family. Nothing else makes sense to me as to his complete blind faith in the goodness of drs., pharma, and all things medical.

That's not a defense for the lack of evidence backing "alternative medicine."

Seriously, all you got is personal nonsense? You know nothing about me, and your post is ludicrously inaccurate. Your attacks on me say much more about you. Try challenging your blind faith. Learn about the placebo effect in depth. The old idiom about knowing a little bit is a very dangerous thing may just fit your situation.

answered and responded on topic to everything you directed at me.

This was a response to someone else about you, and the assessment is clearly correct and displayed regularly here on DU. If you think that assessment is a personal attack, I suggest you change yourself and your responses to alleviate the accuracy of the assessment.

Then offered up folksy anecdotes, while pretending to have a basis for your claims, and ignoring the fact that there is no science behind what you are pushing. And now you have attacked me in a very ugly manner. Read your own posts. Look in the mirror, and then tell you didn't attack me in an ugly manner.

so I'm glad to see you are wrong, even if you are spinning like a Repub to pretend you're not.

Seriously, do you have anything but juvenile BS to offer?

:evilfrown: why do you all use the same fucked up tactics in the same fucked up way?

WOW!

:crazy:

"thinking"

That much is true.

Your disdain for thought, for evidence and for science is duly noted.

You don't care about science. And that's your issue. Trying to point the finger at who people who do does not change that.

If I didn't care about science, I wouldn't criticize scienciness.

Try again.

You've run out of tries. Your posts are not believable. Clearly running an agenda. :thumbsdown:

:rofl:

And you have chosen how you want me to be in your mind so you can defend the defenseless.

to be an ass.

You're very good at pointing fingers at others while doing exactly that which you claim others are doing.

PS...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909

and

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/5178122.stm

:freak:

I don't know where these toxic attitudes come from or why they all have the same set of talking points, bullshit games and hostile behavior, but the fact that you misread -- intentionally or not -- my posts so badly and continue spouting false accusations, makes the rest of your posts unreadable. You -- and all the other people who act this way, incapable of anything resembling discussoin -- are not credible or worth the time.

:rofl:

over logic and reason, earning themselves an early dirt-nap in the process that's one thing, but to hoist the mythology of "homeopathy" on the uninformed, the desperate and the innocent is on par with any war crime in my book.

Homeopathy is quackery. I know it for a fact. Especially the sugar water dilutions.

... is:

Efalizumab (trade name Raptiva)
Rimonabant (also known as SR141716, Acomplia, etc)
Lumiracoxib
Aprotinin (Trasylol)
Tegaserod (Zelnorm)
Pergolide (Permax)
Ximelagatran (Exanta)
Pemoline (Cylert)
Rofecoxib (Vioxx)
Fen-phen
Celebrex

Just a small sampling of "medical science" "peer reviewed studied" "judged safe and effective by the FDA" drugs that have been recalled and many have KILLED PEOPLE and frankly most of the time the worst "alternative medicine" does is nothing.

... a red herring moron, you clearly don't know what a red herring is.

It is a fact, conventional western medicine doesn't have a stellar track record. As I said, at least homeopathy doesn't kill people.

Trying homeopathy to prevent things like malaria leads to death. And conventional medicine needs to improve its safety record, but no "alternative medicine" area can touch the reality of what conventional medicine has done to improve quality of life and lengthen the life span.

I do know what a red herring is, and your post fits the definition to a T. You won't and can't address the snake oil nature of most alternative treatments, so you attempt to distract by bashing with the usual crap, out of context, as always.

.. and you know nothing. If you cannot even admit that Western medicine kills more people in one day that all alternative medicines in a year, then you are ignorant or dishonest.

I don't use homeopathic remedies. But people should be free to if they want. The advertising for that crap isn't anywhere near as repugnant as the advertising for pharmaceuticals I'm bombarded with every time I turn on the TV. Most of which have marginal value at best.

"Medical science" is an oxymoron. The "double blind peer reviewed studies" are done by the pharma's themselves with the "results" reported. They are clearly cooked six ways to Sunday, or we wouldn't be withdrawing more drugs in one decade than all previous history combined.

On top of personal attacks. (Heck, you didn't even read my post.)

:rofl:

Plus shipping & handling, of course....

( :eyes: )

And went with "alternative" medicinces, I'm sure your body count would rack up REALLY quick, as all the diseases that are in check right now would come raging back.

Hell, you might even be alive to see it. That would be sweet, sweet justice.

Is a red herring.

That seems to be your forte.

serious or fatal results from whatever one was attempting to be cured of, but rarely (not never) do the actual naturals cause an issue or a fatality.

If one is using naturals, one needs to recognize that they don't always work for everything, and there is likely a time to see a dr if they don't work. For me, that isn't a choice I'll make, but I have a lifetime of issues with the medical society and will not return for god nor money. I'll die first, quite literally.

But don't let that stop you from being impressed by distractions.

On edit, oh yeah, you tried to use the same gambit.

:rofl:

Thank you. No matter how hard you try though you cannot discredit me. I am not anti-science, I use science all the time in determining what I shall utilize for each issue. Both Biology and Chemistry. I understand that folks, perhaps as yourself, with little or no scientific training or education have to rely on others to solve their every ow-y.

No worries there.

Medical society made me chronically ill and depressed for 30 years, I've now been healthy and happy for the twenty I've tended myself. Perhaps because of my choice to never return, I will die younger than I would've, but I'll guaran-god-damn-tee you, my quality of life is dramatically improved, and that matters more to me.

You can wish and have blind faith in whatever you desire. I have no blind faith, only a determination to avoid drs. and medical society at all costs due to a lifetime of BS from them (I was born dead, had one of the first pediatric open heart surgeries in the US in the very early 1960's, and was essentially under regular and constant medical care most of my first 30 years). Natural will not cure everything, nor do I believe it will, nor do I recommend to anyone to avoid drs or medical advice AS THEY SEE FIT.

Bye now, have a lovely day!

You've made that clear.

Of course, you leave out all the things it has done right,

Like wipe out smallpox, polio, leprosy

Vaccines for hundreds of other diseases which killed children,

Cures for different things which used to be killers.

"Alternative" medicine does nothing at best, kills at worse.

Modern medicine cures at best, kills at worst. And the worst is because someone is trying to cure the problem, not stealing a buck.

Nothing plus a little mumbo jumbo can do a world of good. MDs use them all the time. There is a lot of research going into the placebo effect, and that's a good thing.

That placebos are the best medicine in the world, when they work.

She truly believed that by positive thinking, a vegetarian diet and herbs and stuff she could cure herself.

She was poor but doctor pals in the community offered to treat her for free and she refused.

My wife always calls her a casualty of the New Age movement.

I'm all for medicinal herbs, positive thinking and diet mind you, but you don't fool around with life or death stuff IMO.

I think she died about a year later, in her 40s. This was close to 20 years ago...

My mom was 75 when she got breast cancer, went the "Western medicine" route, which was horribly unpleasant, but she survived another 7 years to die of something else entirely.

We need to do several things in this country regarding cancer treatments. Aside from universal health care so tests and treatment don't bankrupt families, the biggest thing we need to do, imo, is have much much much better comfort measures to deal with the awful side effects of chemotherapy. Often people with a diagnosis of cancer fear the treatment as much or more than the disease, which I suspect was one motive for my late friend's decision.

Herbal remedies, a positive outlook, healthy diet, personal rituals like meditation and prayer, emotional support -- all these have a role in "healing." But if a patient shows up with a broken leg or a cancerous lump, those things won't do the job all by themselves.

Hekate

i honestly think she believed she was doing the right thing and considering the number of "diet nuts" in america i'm not sure how many fingers we can point

we laugh at her because it's aids/hiv but then we turn around and pretend that diet is the key to curing/preventing cancer and heart disease when it's advanced tech (surgery and medicines) that do 99% of the job of curing these ills

there is something in human nature that makes us want to believe in fairy tales and we in america can see it in the south african but we refuse to see it in ourselves

how many have died because instead of providing universal health care to all who have heart disease we tell the un-insured to eat more brown rice?

Making health care available is key.

Buyer beware always applies. That said any treatment for a disease or disorder, should undergo some form of formal scrutiny.

Me, I want consistent, equal regulation across health care. But I generally agree with your post.

:hi:

:hi:

Dosage is everything, almost any medicine is bad for you if you take too much, or ineffective if you don't get enough. Almost any treatment has some risks associated with it.

Thanks for this post. It cannot be said often enough.

http://whatstheharm.net/

Thanks.

Shame on the mod who moved this out of GD.

It is General Discussion, no?

Does someone not like the conversation?

We see the anti-science folks going to court over language to try and quiet scientists, and at DU this is the tactic they use.

It's sick and wrong, but they'll do whatever they can to protect the woo.

that last post is the most insane mess of false accusations and hateful claims I've ever seen on the topic here. And I've seen the most vicious crap the sciencyiests can dish out.

How do you expect to have any credibility? This is provocation, nothing more or less. Deliberate disinformation.

You just don't like the truth, so you attack it in your juvenile manner.