• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Differences. Complementary, alternative, integrative meds

thaiboxerken

Penultimate Amazing
thaiboxerken
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
34,537
I've recently been arguing with an acupuncture, alt. med quack. He's trying to convince me that acupuncture is not "alternative" medicine, but is instead "complementary and integrative." WTF is that?! To me, it's like a creationist telling me that his theories are not creationism, but is intelligent design.

I know that there are subtle differences in the terms "alternative, complentary and integrative" as far as the medical community is concerned, but the all incorporate "alternative" methods, right? Alternative meds are the usual "eastern" and "holisitic" quack methods that haven't been shown to be effective at any scientific level. Complementary treatment is just using the alternative methods in addition to, or to complement science-based medical treatments. Integrative is an attempt to combine the use of quack meds with science to come up with something else.

Am I accurate in this assessment of the terms?
 
thaiboxerken said:
I've recently been arguing with an acupuncture, alt. med quack. He's trying to convince me that acupuncture is not "alternative" medicine, but is instead "complementary and integrative." WTF is that?
Click to expand...

Why not ask him? Ask, "What exactly do you mean by that, and how does it differ from 'complementary'"? Once he's defined his terms, you can poke holes in them.
 
It is exactly like 'creation science', or ID...euphemisms.

'Complementary' means "We don't want to be called 'alternative' any more". :p

As far as 'Integrative' goes, it means 'used in conjunction with'...not neccessarily 'heals better when combined with'.

Giving lollipops to young patients and hanging pretty pictures in one's medical office is also an integrative practice.
 
Yep, these alt med people are dishonest, and I don't even know if he realizes the dishonesty of his claims. Spiderman isn't a comic book character, he's a movie character.
 
As I see it, "alternative" is where they have the chutzpah to claim that they can actually help patients all by their own little selves, without any help from real medicine. All the real anti-medicine quacks are in this category - the homoeopaths who say that any "allopathic" medicine will antidote the homoeopathy and so on.

"Complementary" (and more recently "integrative") is where they realise that they can't do diddly-squat, but continue to try to make a buck by claiming all sorts of little minor improvements to be had over and above what real medicine can do. Parasites.

If the latter category achieve anything at all, it's in the field of occupational therapy. Keep the patient occupied while the real medicine works.

Rolfe.
 
Medical practices can be divided in two ways. Does it work? Has its effect be substantiated? (e.g. been shown to probably be effective)

Almost of of real medicine has been substantiated and therefore almost all of real medicine works.

Any other kind of "medicine" has not been shown to be effective and therefore most of it does not work. You can call unproven medicine what ever you like but it probably does not work.

Names are irrelevant. Unsubstantiated is unsubstantiated and therefore unlikely to work.

CBL
 
Yea, then you get into arguments with them about what "real" medicine is.

Those freaks can keep arguing, but they can't seem to produce good evidence to support their claims.
 
thaiboxerken said:
That's witty and hilarious! Can I use your "occupational therapy" bit?
Click to expand...
Sure! My posts are usually dull, so this one must be inspiration. I don't think it's all that original, mind you.

I had a lot of trouble with the two different factions while discussion on the H'pathy board. When I tried to challenge the homoeopaths' practices by postulating cases where patients did what they were told (by Snoopy and Divina in particular) and consulted a homoepoath first, and then believed all that junk about allopathy being pure poison and so on, and then died because they didn't get the real medicine they needed, all I got was the complementary brigade insisting that they would never do such a thing, and that they only worked with people who'd already been diagnosed and were receiving all the real medical help they needed. This was usually followed by a (completely unsubstantiated) assertion that of course under these circumstances homoeopaths could reduce the dose of insulin needed to keep a diabetic patient stable and so on, but essentially these people were parasites who let real medics do all the work and then provided a hobby where the patients could act out their remaining hypochondria and feel pampered.

Unfortunately this seems to be quite a popular way to turn a dishonest buck these days, and it's even happening within the NHS.

Rolfe.
 
I do find it disturbing that medical establishments that used to have integrity are now providing unearned validation for quack therapies.
 
thaiboxerken said:
I do find it disturbing that medical establishments that used to have integrity are now providing unearned validation for quack therapies.
Click to expand...
Hearty agreement here.

Rolfe.
 
Oh, there are scientific studies that support acupuncture...
It really does exist, and those really are real needles...and sometimes it may even appear to have a mild effect on pain.

And there are all sorts of studies from in TCM publications acupuncture practitioners on the various types of Qi flow, etc.

I'm not so sure that there are any modern, controlled, peer reviewed, Western medical journal studies that back up any of acupuntures *healing* claims.
 
Let's see, the claims that these guys say that there is scientific evidence for are

1. Pain. Ok, I might consider acupuncture works on pain, just like any other placebo.

2. Nausea
3. Rashes
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom