alternative medicine?

[...JR]

Earlier today in my Brain and Behavior class, we were discussing psychosomatic illness, something I've read about countless times personally. I asked if there was such as thing as psychosomatic healing, i.e. televangalist, alternative medicine, acupuncture etc.

Essentially, he told me some of what I expected, such as yes the placebo effect can help you with certain things such as a bad stomach ache or other things along those lines, but it won't cure things such as cancer of the liver.

However, he brought up herbal medicine and how herbs are medicine and they do work. This is why when you are taken to the doctor, they might ask if you are taking any herbs so that they can change the titration of whatever medicine they will give you. For some reason, this doesn't sound right to me. I understand that some of the medical knowledge we have may come from various herbs and plants, but alot of it has come through animal testing.

He also mentioned how acupuncture really does work and we even discussed that recent study where the same physiological effects can be reached withouth the mention of meridian lines, or chi, or even the use of actual acupuncture needles. His point was that in the end it actually works on your body, so meridian lines or not (acupuncture or not), it is a proper form of medicine.

I didn't want to get into a semantic argument with him and how it's not really acupuncture once you remove things like chi and meridian lines, and so i thought, "hey, if it works on people then why not support it?"

Well it just seems like intellectual dishonesty to promote these things such as chi when they are clearly not needed to come to the same desired effect. And while it helps people, I could see situations where it could also hurt people who would rely on it soley instead of seeking a professional medical diagnosis.

Essentially the point of this little rant is to ask a few questions:
1. Do herbs really work as medicine, and if so, to what degree?

2. Do you consider acupunture a legitimate medical practice, despite being able to produce the same effects by simply putting needles anywhere in your body?

3. Do you support the idea of, "Hey, even if it is just a placebo effect, the fact that it works makes it OK."

I'm just trying to make sense of this placebo effect since it seems to have a use for some things even though it is largely discreditied among many people, for instance I have seen it dismissed here before as being useless and not really having any beneficial effect whatsoever.

After all I've learned in this class about how your state of mind can many times effect your body (i.e. stress), I just don't know what to make of it all.

Any help is greatly appreciated.

 

[Dr Adequate]

However, he brought up herbal medicine and how herbs are medicine and they do work. This is why when you are taken to the doctor, they might ask if you are taking any herbs so that they can change the titration of whatever medicine they will give you. For some reason, this doesn't sound right to me. I understand that some of the medical knowledge we have may come from various herbs and plants, but alot of it has come through animal testing.

This is a strange false dichotomy. The herbs are the things being tested. The animals are the things the herbs are tested on. We get our knowledge of the properties of plants through animal testing. This is not a contradiction.

Do herbs really work as medicine, and if so, to what degree?

The SkepticWiki article [swiki]Herbal Medicine[/swiki] may be useful here. It does not contain analyses of individual herbs, but it does explain in general why herbal medicines are likely to be inferior.

 

[Dr Adequate]

He also mentioned how acupuncture really does work and we even discussed that recent study where the same physiological effects can be reached withouth the mention of meridian lines, or chi, or even the use of actual acupuncture needles. His point was that in the end it actually works on your body, so meridian lines or not (acupuncture or not), it is a proper form of medicine.

But the point of these experiments is actually that acupuncture is no more effective than placebo acupuncture. This does not prove the effectiveness of acupuncture, it measures the degree to which patients think they've been relieved when they think they've had acupuncture.

 

[...JR]

But the point of these experiments is actually that acupuncture is no more effective than placebo acupuncture. This does not prove the effectiveness of acupuncture, it measures the degree to which patients think they've been relieved when they think they've had acupuncture.

This is what I'm not understanding, and maybe you could help clarify it. So these patients think that they've been relieved of whatever illness they may have, whether it be by acupuncture or placebo acupuncture, but does it ever actually rid them of their illness, or just give them the impression it is no more? And if their problem is a psychosomatic illness, will the acuptuncture be sufficient enough to rid them of it?

My professor made it very clear that needles, regardless or chi or other nonsense, when placed in the skin around areas of heavily mylenated/fat nerve cells, will trigger responses to your spinal cord which will send a signal to the brain releasing endorphins, hence the feeling good part. However, he also went into something about a break in the path that happens along the way, but I forgot some of what he said. So would this really be a placebo effect or actual medical therapy?

 

[Bronze Dog]

I think some explanation of the placebo effect is in order:

First, are the psychological tricks we play on ourselves:

The regressive fallacy: People tend to go for these treatments when a condition is at its worst. When it goes back to its average as a result of normal fluctations, we might attribute that to the treatment.

Confirmation bias: Remembering the times when we're feeling better while ignoring or rationalizing away the bad times.

Wrong cause: I've often heard of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, radiation, whatever known, working treatments there are, and attribute any improvement to, say, homeopathy.

There's also a physical side to the placebo effect: Coincidental recovery. People get better on their own, sometimes.

What makes the placebo effect trigger all the psychological parts is that humans live by knowledge: We feel good when we learn something, or when we apply knowledge successfully. The problem is when we evaluate success sloppily.

Bottom line: The placebo effect is essentially what happens when you do nothing, but think you've done something.

 

[...JR]

This is a strange false dichotomy. The herbs are the things being tested. The animals are the things the herbs are tested on. We get our knowledge of the properties of plants through animal testing. This is not a contradiction.

I'm honestly not too sure what you mean by this post. I was saying how alot of our medical knowledge, when it comes to cures for diseases, comes from chemicals tested on animals, not from herbs tested on animals. I was under the impression that animal testing was key to the prevention or treatment of such diseases as polio diabetes, measles, smallpox, etc. Were herbs the source of these treatments?

I'm sorry, I'm just not understanding their role and how people would consider it to be more useful than a doctor prescribed medicine. If you could please clear things up, as you can tell I don't know very much about herbs at all, and maybe animal testing for that matter.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Herbs are chemicals. So is just about everything else.

The twist with herbs is that they're cocktails of several chemicals, while scientists will typically isolate individual ones from the herbs for testing and, if successful, marketing.

 

[...JR]

I think some explanation of the placebo effect is in order:

First, are the psychological tricks we play on ourselves:

The regressive fallacy: People tend to go for these treatments when a condition is at its worst. When it goes back to its average as a result of normal fluctations, we might attribute that to the treatment.

Confirmation bias: Remembering the times when we're feeling better while ignoring or rationalizing away the bad times.

Wrong cause: I've often heard of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, radiation, whatever known, working treatments there are, and attribute any improvement to, say, homeopathy.

There's also a physical side to the placebo effect: Coincidental recovery. People get better on their own, sometimes.

What makes the placebo effect trigger all the psychological parts is that humans live by knowledge: We feel good when we learn something, or when we apply knowledge successfully. The problem is when we evaluate success sloppily.

Bottom line: The placebo effect is essentially what happens when you do nothing, but think you've done something.

So is sticking needles in your body in various places (not any specific lines necessarily) and feeling good due to the release of endorphins not a placebo effect?

Or is the placebo effect that the person thinks the release of endorphins is curing them, when in fact it's just making them feel better for the time being?

 

[roger]

JR, well thats the thing, the only thing acupuncture has been shown to do is provide some mild pain relief. If you want mild pain relief, sure, get some needles stuck in you. Or take a couple of aspirin, your choice. Neither is going to cure the underlying cause of the pain, unless it's due to inflammation, in which case the aspirin will help with that as well.

Given that, it doesn't seem very legitimate to use acupuncture, though there may be some very well defined cases where it would be the best choice for pain relief.

Note there may be nothing psychosomatic in this particular mechanism. Jam some needles in nerves, and release of endorphins is a possible physical reaction.

 

[...JR]

Herbs are chemicals. So is just about everything else.

The twist with herbs is that they're cocktails of several chemicals, while scientists will typically isolate individual ones from the herbs for testing and, if successful, marketing.

Thank you for clarifying that. So does this mean all of our medicine comes, in some way, from the testing of herbs?

 

[roger]

Thank you for clarifying that. So does this mean all of our medicine comes, in some way, from the testing of herbs?

No, some medicines are entirely created in the lab, absent plant material. There's some figure out there which I don't remember. Something like 80% of medicine starts from plant material, or is a synthasized form of something originally found in plants? Not sure on the exact number.

 

[Bronze Dog]

In the case of endorphins, I'd say it's a temporary good feeling at most alongside the placebo effect. The "cures" are likely the result of the various psychological tricks the patients play on themselves.

I guess it's analogous to giving someone a very small asprin and a sugar pill for cancer.

 

[jon]

EDIT: Roger beat me to it, and his post puts it more clearly, so feel free to ignore this

My professor made it very clear that needles, regardless or chi or other nonsense, when placed in the skin around areas of heavily mylenated/fat nerve cells, will trigger responses to your spinal cord which will send a signal to the brain releasing endorphins, hence the feeling good part. However, he also went into something about a break in the path that happens along the way, but I forgot some of what he said. So would this really be a placebo effect or actual medical therapy?

my understanding, quite possibly wrong, is that there is some evidence that sticking needles in people releases endorphins. Bob Park wrote about this entertainingly:

A Maryland study of 570 elderly patients who suffer from arthritis of the knee, found that 6 months of acupuncture modestly reduced pain and improved agility. Six months? Why not take an aspirin? Scientists suggest the needles stimulate release of endorphins. Jalapeno peppers do the same thing. So it wouldn't matter where you stick the needles would it? Then who needs an acupuncturist?

This does suggest that sticking needles in people, whether done as acupuncture or not, it does work is pain relief in a way which is not entirely the placebo effect. I'd with Bob Parks in that as far as I can tell the non-placebo elements of acupuncture aren't that effective (I'd prefer curry ).

 

[...JR]

I got to say, you all came through, I appreciate your help.

 

[Bronze Dog]

You're welcome...





...JR.

 

[Dogdoctor]

1. Do herbs really work as medicine, and if so, to what degree?

Herbs have pharmacological actions. Because of this they can affect the doses of drugs. Grapefruit juice can affect the dose of drugs. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/01/20/health/webmd/main668105.shtml That isn't to say that grapefruit juice is a useful drug but you need to be aware of their use in prescribing real drugs. The argument that doctors ask about them and that is because they are useful is a lie. They ask about them only because it affects the safety of giving real drugs. Herbs are impure drugs regardless of what natural bozos say about them. They are plant products and so contain thousands of chemicals, often most of which are not responsible for the effect and not healthy to be consuming. The more herbs are taken the more side effects doctors are seeing from people taking them. In addition there is no regulation of active ingredients in these herbal preparations so some may not contain any and others have very high levels. I don't know of any disease or condition that herbal products are the best treatment for.

2. Do you consider acupuncture a legitimate medical practice, despite being able to produce the same effects by simply putting needles anywhere in your body?

I think anyone promoting meridians and chi etc is not a scientist and cares/knows little about the reality of the situation. Acupuncture has gained in popularity yet without much science to back it up. It is still inferior to treating using other methods. Is there an effect? I think there may be a very slight effect to sticking needles in a some people or some animals but what that effect is has not yet been defined.

3. Do you support the idea of, "Hey, even if it is just a placebo effect, the fact that it works makes it OK."

People who promote bogus medical treatments are misleading the public and even if they are good placebos, truth is more important than promoting a whole bunch of woo.

 

[drkitten]

I think anyone promoting meridians and chi etc is not a scientist and cares/knows little about the reality of the situation. Acupuncture has gained in popularity yet without much science to back it up. It is still inferior to treating using other methods. Is there an effect? I think there may be a very slight effect to sticking needles in a some people or some animals but what that effect is has not yet been defined.

There's a very important distinction that I think is at risk of being missed in this discussion.

There is a difference between promoting a treatment and promoting a theory.

Digitalis, one of the original "herbal medicines," provides a good example. Foxglove looks a lot like arrows, so it has been used for centuries if not millenia to treat "elf-shot," which of course is a maddeningly vague term for all the various symptoms caused by getting shot by little elfin arrows. Today we tend to have a lot of different terms for "elf-shot," including congestive heart disease.

An eighteenth century English physician learned that foxglove tea was used, with some success, by local "old wives" to treat heart disease, and he decided to investigate it. The results of his investigation were the identification of a specific plant compound that had some good effects as a vasoconstrictor, and we've now got a pretty good handle not only on what the compound does (in fairly exact and technical terms) but also the ability to manufacture several different variations on it without needing to pick foxglove flowers.

But the fact that foxglove tea contains a particular obscure organic molecule does not mean we should accept "little elfin arrows" as a recognized medical phenomenon. And, in fact, both the effectiveness and the morbidity associated with digitalis improved when we started to look at what the real biological effects were and whether we could improve upon nature.

Similarly, the jury is still out on whether or not acupuncture has any real clinical effect whatsoever. But even if it did, that by itself would not amount to support for the chi and meridian theories.

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm honestly not too sure what you mean by this post. I was saying how alot of our medical knowledge, when it comes to cures for diseases, comes from chemicals tested on animals, not from herbs tested on animals.

The way you phrased it maybe came out wrong.

The fact is, a lot of our pharmacoepia come from herbs.

And the reason we use it, and know that it works, is that we tested it.

That's the only difference between "alternative medicine" and real medicine. If alternative medicine is tested and shown to be safe and more effective than placebo --- then it is real medicine. Which must then be compared with the other available pills

 

[Dr Adequate]

An eighteenth century English physician learned that foxglove tea was used, with some success, by local "old wives" to treat heart disease, and he decided to investigate it. The results of his investigation were the identification of a specific plant compound that had some good effects as a vasoconstrictor, and we've now got a pretty good handle not only on what the compound does (in fairly exact and technical terms) but also the ability to manufacture several different variations on it without needing to pick foxglove flowers.

But the fact that foxglove tea contains a particular obscure organic molecule does not mean we should accept "little elfin arrows" as a recognized medical phenomenon. And, in fact, both the effectiveness and the morbidity associated with digitalis improved when we started to look at what the real biological effects were and whether we could improve upon nature.

This is mentioned in [swiki]Witch Trials[/swiki]

The doctor in question was William Withering, of Shropshire.

 

[Dr Adequate]

The SkepticWiki article [swiki]Herbal Medicine[/swiki] may be useful here. It does not contain analyses of individual herbs, but it does explain in general why herbal medicines are likely to be inferior.

Sorry .. that should have been [swiki]Herbal medicine[/swiki]

* sulks *