Alternative Medicine Quandry

[shalomsteph]

I am just wondering...

I understand that there are people who shun traditional medicine and only use homeopathic remedies.

So if a homeopathic remedy becomes accepted by the medical community and becomes traditional medicine, then is it shunned? Do these folks really think the stuff is better or do they just like thinking they know some hidden secret?

Just askin'.

 

[Psiload]

I am just wondering...

I understand that there are people who shun traditional medicine and only use homeopathic remedies.

So if a homeopathic remedy becomes accepted by the medical community and becomes traditional medicine, then is it shunned? Do these folks really think the stuff is better or do they just like thinking they know some hidden secret?

Just askin'.

A homeopathic remedy being accepted as traditional medicine by the evidence-based medical community.

It doesn't get any more hypothetical than that.

 

[Elind]

..... or do they just like thinking they know some hidden secret?

That sounds like a good insight.

 

[Zep]

Yep - a "hidden secret". It's at the bottom of a bottle of magical water.

 

[El Greco]

In the impossible case a homeopathic remedy becomes accepted by the medical community, then this means that there will be studies supporting its effectiveness. Which means that homeopathy will then become a legitimate specialty of medicine. Which also means that pharmaceutical companies will start producing that remedy with standardized procedures and will sooner or later dominate the market for that remedy. So eventually that remedy will become part of the "evil medical status". People who support homeopathy will face a great dilemma, because on one hand they will be proven at least partially correct, but on the other hand their favorite "alternative" therapy will now be assimilated by the "evil system". So they will probably focus on some offshoot of homeopathy which will undoubtedly emerge for the sole purpose of being "out of the system". The bottom line is, there will always be people who will need to believe in an inherently evil system and in therapies that can achieve what mainstream medicine can't. No matter how much medicine progresses, and no matter how much you expand the borders of what is accepted, some people will still want to be on the fringe simply because they are reactive or whimsical. As long as there are health problems that can't be solved by real medicine, there will also be "alternative" treatments. And as long as humans pursue immortality, there will also be supporters of these treatments.

 

[epepke]

I am just wondering...

I understand that there are people who shun traditional medicine and only use homeopathic remedies.

So if a homeopathic remedy becomes accepted by the medical community and becomes traditional medicine, then is it shunned? Do these folks really think the stuff is better or do they just like thinking they know some hidden secret?

Just askin'.

Well, consider this. Something like one-quarter to one-half of all drugs by family originally come from plants, i.e. herbal sources. Think opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as Aspirin, digitalis, curare, etc. None of these are considered herbal remedies by herbalists.

Homeopaths like to point out that small amounts of substances, such as vaccines, can have a medical effect, yet they don't consider vaccines to be homeopathic remedies.

The sine qua non of acceptance into modern medicine is that the substances are tested and possibly refined from other substances that may have ill effects. Sometimes a way to make the substance more cheaply and in a more ecologically sound way is found, and sometimes the substance is modified.

Now, if a homeopathic preparation were tested and found to have a beneficial effect (which I highly doubt, as the theory of homeopathy is so far removed from what we know about chemistry), then within a couple of years homeopaths would themselves shun it, and within ten years most homeopaths would deny that they ever were homeopathic.

 

[luchog]

Well, consider this. Something like one-quarter to one-half of all drugs by family originally come from plants, i.e. herbal sources. Think opiates, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as Aspirin, digitalis, curare, etc. None of these are considered herbal remedies by herbalists.

That's not entirely accurate. The synthesized analogues (which are not always the same as the compound present in the original herbal source) are not considered "herbal" for the simple fact that they're synthesized and used in pure form, missing the various other substances (buffers and potentiators) present in the original herbal source. IE. though they were originally developed from herbal sources, they are not the same drug.

In some cases, it's pretty much irrelevant to the effect. In others, the effects -- most notably "side" effects -- are markedly different.

 

[Ducky]

Where's the quandry? Water doesn't cure anything but dehydration. Sugar pills only taste good (sometimes.)

Modern medicine already knows that.

 

[Iamme]

I am just wondering...

I understand that there are people who shun traditional medicine and only use homeopathic remedies.

So if a homeopathic remedy becomes accepted by the medical community and becomes traditional medicine, then is it shunned? Do these folks really think the stuff is better or do they just like thinking they know some hidden secret?

Just askin'.

There was probably homeopathic medicine before doctors. How do I know? Just an intelligent guess. I can't imagine Adam performing stomach surgery on Eve. I think he would have rather had her try some tea leaves to soothe her belly ache.

And some of these home remedies actually work. Just like chicken soup works.

Homeopathy people, I think, think they are smarter than modern medicine, because they know modern medicine cuts the wrong leg off people on the operating table...nurses give patients a mistaken dose of cyanide instead of something else...the fact that x-rays, that can cause cancer are given, so that doctors can see if there is any cancer. They know that our bodies have only evolved to accept stuff that our bodies are used to and reject the rest. This rejection can pass thru kidneys. livers, cause weird growths, and other signs of rejection...even a mental disorder to develop (this actually happens a lot when new drugs that patients aren't used to, are administered. Just ask my sister who is an RN, and she actually experienced this first hand). And these homepathy people know this and figure Big Medicine is out to lunch, and that they prefer to do it the natural way.

People that are into homeopathy are also those type people more prone to be excercize fanatics, fanatics avbout drinking 3 gallons of distilled water a day, and eat organic foods. Such practices may indeed help them to have a healthier life, and in the event that they come down with something, they carry their thinking perhaps too far into thinking that everything they do naturally, will save them.

But I think this those who are not overly fanantical, realize that if they have some terminal illness, that if their alternative lifestyle did not PREVENT them from contracting what they got, in the first place, then it makes no sense to believe that by engaging further in the alternative methods likely won't help.

I heard a doctor once say when a (homeopathic type) patient was concerned that his radical treatment was going to destroy his immune system, that the doc said that first they had to put out the fire, at all costs; then worry about rebuilding after that. And to me, that makes sense.

 

[Ducky]

There was probably homeopathic medicine before doctors. How do I know? Just an intelligent guess. I can't imagine Adam performing stomach surgery on Eve. I think he would have rather had her try some tea leaves to soothe her belly ache.

Evidence? (that adam cured eve's woes with homeopathy? or that they existed?)

And some of these home remedies actually work. Just like chicken soup works.

Right. Placebos are interesting things, but they're not treating anything. They may relieve symptoms temporarily, but you don't cure anything except dehydration with water.

Homeopathy people, I think, think they are smarter than modern medicine, because they know modern medicine cuts the wrong leg off people on the operating table...nurses give patients a mistaken dose of cyanide instead of something else...the fact that x-rays, that can cause cancer are given, so that doctors can see if there is any cancer. They know that our bodies have only evolved to accept stuff that our bodies are used to and reject the rest. This rejection can pass thru kidneys. livers, cause weird growths, and other signs of rejection...even a mental disorder to develop (this actually happens a lot when new drugs that patients aren't used to, are administered. Just ask my sister who is an RN, and she actually experienced this first hand). And these homepathy people know this and figure Big Medicine is out to lunch, and that they prefer to do it the natural way.

I see. Now you must provide evidence of the following to back up that mess of claims:

1) Medicine harms more than it helps
2) Xrays routinely and repeatedly cause cancer
3) modern medicine is "out to lunch"

While it may be true that cancer was caused in early uses of x-ray technology, they have refined these techniques greatly and you are simply wrong in assuming this is the only way to detect a cancerous growth. Mine was diagnosed with an MRI. Perhaps you missed my avatar? I'll let you figure out what a double blinded trial to test new medicines is, then you can see what your sister is talking about.

People that are into homeopathy are also those type people more prone to be excercize fanatics, fanatics avbout drinking 3 gallons of distilled water a day, and eat organic foods. Such practices may indeed help them to have a healthier life, and in the event that they come down with something, they carry their thinking perhaps too far into thinking that everything they do naturally, will save them.

evidence? I'm no fan of homeopaths, but I think you are making alot of unsubstantiated claims here.

But I think this those who are not overly fanantical, realize that if they have some terminal illness, that if their alternative lifestyle did not PREVENT them from contracting what they got, in the first place, then it makes no sense to believe that by engaging further in the alternative methods likely won't help.

You make no sense there. please post sober, and use clear language.

I heard a doctor once say when a (homeopathic type) patient was concerned that his radical treatment was going to destroy his immune system, that the doc said that first they had to put out the fire, at all costs; then worry about rebuilding after that. And to me, that makes sense.

I'm assuming you are talking about chemotherapy here? If you had half an ounce of intellectual curiosity you'd have read numerous and specific articles and papers written based on SCIENTIFIC STUDY that show that no homeopathic rememdy comes close to the effectiveness of chemotherapy. To say they are concerned with how it works is a sad strawman argument.

 

[HeyLeroy]

There was probably homeopathic medicine before doctors. How do I know? Just an intelligent guess. I can't imagine Adam performing stomach surgery on Eve. I think he would have rather had her try some tea leaves to soothe her belly ache.

Herbs aren't homeopathy.

Also, scroll down to the part about 'holes in skulls'. Contextually ironic.

And some of these home remedies actually work. Just like chicken soup works.

Homeopathy isn't a 'home remedy'. Chicken soup works for hunger and...?

...nurses give patients a mistaken dose of cyanide instead of something else...

Umm, somehow I doubt that hospitals keep cyanide just laying around. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[logical muse]

There was probably homeopathic medicine before doctors. How do I know? Just an intelligent guess. I can't imagine Adam performing stomach surgery on Eve. I think he would have rather had her try some tea leaves to soothe her belly ache.

And some of these home remedies actually work. Just like chicken soup works.

Some tea leaves is not homoeopathic medicine. It's herbal.

Homoeopathic doesn't imply home remedies either.

I suggest that rather than make an intelligent guess, you first find out what is meant by the term homoeopathic medicine.

In case you can't be bothered, let me summarise. Get yourself a drop of something that causes similar symptoms to the affliction in question. Dilute it a gazillion times, so that all you're left with is plain water. Ingest a drop and hey presto you're cured.

 

[logical muse]

Oh err looks like Leroy beat me to the punch.

 

[casebro]

Lighten up, Fowlsound. Iamme is on your side- this time. Everything he said here is anti-homeopathic. Maybe you folks just didn't understand his hyperboles. Where was that thread about how you don't need to be a genius to be a skeptic? but average intelligence would be aproppriate....or reading ability? Iamme said the HE thinks that some HOMEOPATHS think...xrays...cancer...cyanide...

I need a beer- backing Iamme left a bad taste in my mouth.

 

[HeyLeroy]

You added things I didn't.

 

[Ducky]

Lighten up, Fowlsound. Iamme is on your side- this time. Everything he said here is anti-homeopathic. Maybe you folks just didn't understand his hyperboles. Where was that thread about how you don't need to be a genius to be a skeptic? but average intelligence would be aproppriate....or reading ability? Iamme said the HE thinks that some HOMEOPATHS think...xrays...cancer...cyanide...

I need a beer- backing Iamme left a bad taste in my mouth.

Hmm. I need an Iamme to english dictionary.

Now I just feel dirty.

 

[epepke]

That's not entirely accurate. The synthesized analogues (which are not always the same as the compound present in the original herbal source) are not considered "herbal" for the simple fact that they're synthesized and used in pure form, missing the various other substances (buffers and potentiators) present in the original herbal source. IE. though they were originally developed from herbal sources, they are not the same drug.

In some cases, it's pretty much irrelevant to the effect. In others, the effects -- most notably "side" effects -- are markedly different.

I think you're just expanding on what I said.

Herbalists have a belief that the substances itself are ineffective unless combined in the right amounts with the other stuff in the whole plant. This is basically crap. Pure acetylsalicylic acid is safer than willow bark, and aspirin is much safer than pure acetylsalicylic acid.

As archie said, that's only an explanation; it's not an excuse.

Old-timey medical practicioners, from which modern medicine and alternative medicine evolved. If anything, they oversimplified their models in terms of elements and humors and impressive Latin phrases.

It's only since the modern pharmacopea started refining things from plants that herbalists have talked about "buffers" and "potentiators" and have insisted that naturalest is bestest. (Which of course are not the same as buffers in modern medicine.)

It makes perfect sense from a marketing perspective.

 

[Mojo]

I am just wondering...

I understand that there are people who shun traditional medicine and only use homeopathic remedies.

So if a homeopathic remedy becomes accepted by the medical community and becomes traditional medicine, then is it shunned? Do these folks really think the stuff is better or do they just like thinking they know some hidden secret?

Just askin'.

Actually, this was one of Kumar's concerns: that his quack ideas would be hijacked by real doctors once they realised how wonderful they were.

 

[tsg]

I am just wondering...

I understand that there are people who shun traditional medicine and only use homeopathic remedies.

So if a homeopathic remedy becomes accepted by the medical community and becomes traditional medicine, then is it shunned? Do these folks really think the stuff is better or do they just like thinking they know some hidden secret?

Just askin'.

I only know one homeopath and she really believes it works. But that said, I'm sure there are homeopath fans who are what we used to call "B-siders"[1].

Let's say that homeopathy gets lucky (even a blind squirrel can get a nut once in a while) and finds something efficacious that is confirmed by clinical trials. The "B-siders" will likely shun it. But more likely, the rest of homeopathy will tout the single success as a validation of homeopathy in it's entirety. A variation on the "they laughed at Einstein defense" ("we were right about X, so we're right about everything else"). Of course, they will completely fail to understand that clinical trials, and science in general, is used to separate what works from what doesn't work and that their single success with one treatment says nothing about the efficacy of any other treatments.

[1] Okay, I'm really dating myself here, but back before there were CDs, there were things called "records". Bands would release a single song (called a "single") on a smaller record (called a "45" because they played at 45 rpm). Now, because records had two sides (what you say?), they would record a less popular song on the other side (the "B" side, the popular song being on the "A" side). There was a particular class of music fans, believing themselves to be uninfluenced by popular opinion (a kind of non-conformity), who, when the particular single came up in conversation, would invariably say, "Yeah, but I bought it for the B-side". They were known as "B-siders" for their fervent dislike of anything popular. Today, the code phrase is "yeah, but I was doing it before it was cool."

 

[shalomsteph]

[1] Okay, I'm really dating myself here, but back before there were CDs, there were things called "records". Bands would release a single song (called a "single") on a smaller record (called a "45" because they played at 45 rpm). Now, because records had two sides (what you say?), they would record a less popular song on the other side (the "B" side, the popular song being on the "A" side). There was a particular class of music fans, believing themselves to be uninfluenced by popular opinion (a kind of non-conformity), who, when the particular single came up in conversation, would invariably say, "Yeah, but I bought it for the B-side". They were known as "B-siders" for their fervent dislike of anything popular. Today, the code phrase is "yeah, but I was doing it before it was cool."

I remember records! My teenager and almost teenager give me the eyeroll and "I can't believe you said that" look whenever I say I have to go to the "record store" or "I should buy that record album." So of course, now I always make a point of using "record" instead of "CD" whenever they are within earshot.

I like the term B sider. I think I will steal it from you. I have learned so much since joining this forum. Like what a woo-woo is, and that it can be used in just about any sentence as various parts of speech.

Oh, and I can't seem to get an avatar...am I missing something?

Steph