• 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.

Is "Holistic Medicine" REALLY "holistic"?

Valmorian

Critical Thinker
V
Joined
Aug 1, 2001
Messages
260
I often hear from alt-med fanatics that allopathic medicine only treats the symptoms instead of treating the body holistically.

At first, I considered this and thought "hmm, that is an interesting point", but then as I started reading more and more about alternative medicine something struck me: Alt-med is NO DIFFERENT.

When I look up an alternative "cure" for some ailment I may have, I look it up by symptom in alt-medical sources as well. The "medicines" that they suggest also indicate what symptoms they alleviate.

Is the "holistic" thing a red-herring? Can someone show me an Alternative Medicine that actually DOES act differently in practice than Allopathic Medicine?
 
Well, leaving aside the fact that "allopathic" is an insulting term for real medicine used by quacks (it was coined by the inventor of homoeopathy specifically to sneer at his mainstream colleagues), the main difference is that real medicine uses (as far as is possible, nobody's saying everything is perfect) methods which have been objectively tested and shown to work. Alt-med is basically the rest - things which either have never been adequately tested, or have been tested and shown to be of no benefit.

The thing is, medicine is pragmatic and eclectic. If something works, whether it be herbal extracts or back massage or whatever, it is incorporated into normal medical practice. So, alternative medicine is really an alternative to medicine. That is, not medicine.

The whole "holistic" thing is pure marketing, with a dash of more insult to the medical profession by implying that doctors only consider the malfunctioning part, not the patient as a whole. In reality the consideration of the patient as a whole is vital to good medical practice. As you have observed, it is the altmeddlers themselves who are more likely to be guilty of considering only the presenting signs (explicitly so in the case of homoeopathy).

Rolfe.
 
Rolfe said:
Well, leaving aside the fact that "allopathic" is an insulting term for real medicine used by quacks (it was coined by the inventor of homoeopathy specifically to sneer at his mainstream colleagues), the main difference is that real medicine uses (as far as is possible, nobody's saying everything is perfect) methods which have been objectively tested and shown to work. Alt-med is basically the rest - things which either have never been adequately tested, or have been tested and shown to be of no benefit.</QUOTE>

I understand the differences between the origins of medicine and "alt" medicine, that wasn't what I was getting at.

The point I was making is that so far as I can tell, the actual "practice" of both is indistinguishable if you take away the sources of both. Alt-medicine still just "treats the symptoms", and as such, I find it disingenious for them to claim the high ground..
Click to expand...
 
I remember someone once saying how they knew someone who went to a "holisitic" doctor and that that's someone who looks at your whole body.

I was under the impression that any general practitioner worth his or her salt will also do the same thing.
 
Valmorian said:
Alt-medicine still just "treats the symptoms", and as such, I find it disingenious for them to claim the high ground..
Click to expand...
Disingenuous is their middle name.
 
Valmorian said:
The point I was making is that so far as I can tell, the actual "practice" of both is indistinguishable if you take away the sources of both. Alt-medicine still just "treats the symptoms", and as such, I find it disingenious for them to claim the high ground..
Click to expand...
No, it's deeper than that.

Real medicine doesn't "just" treat the symptoms. The absolute basis of medicine is diagnosis, and it is diagnosis which is the skill it takes most time to teach and to learn in a medical course. Once you have an accurate diagnosis then the rest is usually relatively plain sailing. The aim then is not to "treat the symptoms" but to address the underlying cause of the problem and correct or eliminate it.

It's only in cases where there is no way to fix the underlying problem, or where the underlying problem is something which will go away by itself and the patient just needs relief from discomfort in the mean time, where "treating the symptoms" comes in. This might be as simple as decongestants to relieve the symptoms of a cold which will go away by itself in a few days, or as complex as aggressive palliative care for terminal cancer patients. However, this isn't really what medicine is about - it's a second-best, for cases where the desired outcome of actively removing the problem simply isn't on.

In contrast, altmed usually doesn't concern itself with diagnosis, or where it does, the diagnostic methods are usually quackery and nonsense (like that applied kinesiology rubbish). You're quite right, however they choose to spin it, most of their methods are simply matching overt symptoms to some sort of remedy, with no consideration of what the real underlying cause might be, or whether that can be rectified.

You might be interested in the link in my sig line.

Rolfe.
 
The vast majority of homeopathic diagnosis is literally a lookup in a database to match symptoms. The database is the set of "materia medicas", and it is so mechanical that it can be automated into PC software. And, naturally, has been.

You can download dozens of variants of this type of homeopathic lookup programs all over the internet. All of them claim to be "fully acredited" and such (against what is not said). Then, to use it, simply ask the patient what the problem is, plug the symptoms into the database search, and bingo! Your remedies are chosen for you.

Of course, if they don't work the first time around, you can always prompt the patient to mention or even invent symptoms in their imagination. Then repeat the cycle to get a new set of plain water or sugar pills...sorry, homeopathic remedies to try.

Of course, by the time you have exhausted all these remedies, your cold or tummy ache or sprained ankle will have fixed itself. However the homeopath will take credit for it for using the last remedy given to you.

Classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
 
Zep said:
The vast majority of homeopathic diagnosis is literally a lookup in a database to match symptoms. The database is the set of "materia medicas", and it is so mechanical that it can be automated into PC software. And, naturally, has been.

You can download dozens of variants of this type of homeopathic lookup programs all over the internet. All of them claim to be "fully acredited" and such (against what is not said). Then, to use it, simply ask the patient what the problem is, plug the symptoms into the database search, and bingo! Your remedies are chosen for you.

Of course, if they don't work the first time around, you can always prompt the patient to mention or even invent symptoms in their imagination. Then repeat the cycle to get a new set of plain water or sugar pills...sorry, homeopathic remedies to try.

Of course, by the time you have exhausted all these remedies, your cold or tummy ache or sprained ankle will have fixed itself. However the homeopath will take credit for it for using the last remedy given to you.

Classic example of post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Click to expand...


I remember trying that website that gives homeopathic remedies for your ailments. I tryied to look up "Singular Plasmacytoma" but of course they just had general cancer entries. No "Spinal Cancer" so I used "Abdominal Cancer."

It told me to take phosphorus.

Because apparently glowing in the dark was going to cure my cancer.

My neurosurgeon and I had a laugh over that.
 
I remember when my girlfriend told me she learned about 'Holistic medicine' at her school (ugh, asthetics school) and how it was better than normal medicine.

I just pointed out the fact that 'holistic' meant 'the whole body', so they couldn't possibly be looking at, say, only the liver.

Modern medicine, on the other hand, is heuristic, examining each part of the problem, finding out what does what and why it does it, etc etc... (don't forget that you can abstract the whole body as a 'part', meaning heuristic includes holistic)

The simple fact is you get more information about the body from a heuristic approach. (OH, so it isn't some weird energy field that regulates blood sugar...)
 
Rolfe said:
No, it's deeper than that.
Click to expand...

I think you are misunderstanding my point. It is the alt-medders who describe "allopathic medicine" as "treating the symptoms".

My point is that alt medicine acts NO DIFFERENTLY when it comes to practice. They don't do things differently, just without the scientific basis to back them up. They still prescribe what they consider to be cures for your conditions, they don't approach the illness in a significantly different way.
 
Well, actually, alt medicine people apparently tend to 'tend to the patient' more. Doctors apparently have a reputation for a 'get in, diagnosis, get out' attitude (who can blame them, they have a lot of work).

As for the 'whole body' thing. That's just them describing their treatment. Most alternatives claim dozens of things affecting multiple parts of the body... etc.
 
It seems to me that it's a bit of a fallacy to cite one "holistic" treatment that doesn't seem to be such, and conclude that holistic medicine is not in fact holistic. Of course, automatically considering holistic treatments to be better is also a fallacy.
 
Art Vandelay said:
It seems to me that it's a bit of a fallacy to cite one "holistic" treatment that doesn't seem to be such, and conclude that holistic medicine is not in fact holistic. Of course, automatically considering holistic treatments to be better is also a fallacy.
Click to expand...
One of the things I was going to say earlier is that it would be worth looking up the history of the word "holistic". I can't remember the details, but I think it was something to do with the 1930s German back-to-nature movement, and has more woo-ish connotations than the simple translation of "treating the whole body" might suggest.

What definition of "holistic" would you be going by, and could you cite one or more avowedly "holistic" methods which really do fit the description? Because I think Valmorian is by a nd large right, that most of these systems, when examined, actually fit the description of "only treating the symptoms" better than real medicine does, for which that straw man was coined.

Rolfe.
 
Valmorian said:
I think you are misunderstanding my point. It is the alt-medders who describe "allopathic medicine" as "treating the symptoms". ....
Click to expand...

The honest confusion comes into play when the classical homeopaths are taught to ONLY treat according to the symptoms. At least this is what I gathered from the discussions here on homeopathy over the past year or so (do check the link in Rolfe's sig).

This was very evident after my oldest child had a complaint that he could not run much... and when he did his left arm would hurt. At first we thought (including our family doc) that it was because it was the arm he injured when he fell a few months before.

BUT... during a regular well-child physical the doctor heard a heart murmur. This was new... and something no homeopath would find out since none would use a stethoscope (they just sit and talk to the patient for an hour or so). So an echocardiogram was set up... where a video of how his heard was actually working was made (takes a half to a whole hour).

It was there that the initial diagnosis of a genetic heart disorder was found. Then he was referred to a pediatric heart specialist... where ANOTHER echocardiogram was given, a chest X-ray and three different EKG's (a normal one, another where he was on a treadmill, and another that required him to wear for 24 hours a holter... not a mis-spelling -- it is device that records the EKG). The EKG leads are placed on his chest, neck, arm and ankle.

Now please note how much of a difference that is in treating the WHOLE body... versus a homeopath or other alt-medder claims. (also the family doc gave us a referral to a counselor, because let's face it... this is not a diagnosis a teenager likes to deal with).

I've discussed this with some of the homeopaths on this board (do a search) and I have yet to get a definite answer on how a homeopathic remedy would be better than Atenolol... or even if it could do anything. It is often amusing.
 
We should also remember that alt meddlers are mostly stupid and lazy and in most of their scams there is provided some process whereby they claim to examine some feature of the body that is a proxy for the whole body's state of health. This avoids all that bother of the difficult business of learning anatomy pathology and therapeutics.

The validity of this proxy is an unexamined assumption for the alt med practitioner and argument by blatant assertion, as Rolfe has described it, is the only evidence that is needed or given.

Homeopaths claim the symptoms are the whole disease, and by this the usually mean symptoms reported by the patient not those that might involve getting their money-grubbing hands dirty by examining them (never mind that physical exams cannot legally be performed by homeopaths in at least some parts of the US, someone will need to confirm whether that varies by state or is national).

Craniosacral therapists such as our dear Sarah claim to intuit the whole state of the body by palpating (non-existent) pulsations in the cerebrospinal fluid detectable as movements in the skull bones.

Reflexology has the whole body mapped on the feet.

Reiki masters detect the "energy" field of the body with their hands.

So, really their claim to "holism" derives not from a genuine taking into account of the whole set of information that a patient can yield as, ironically, a real medic can do. Instead their claim rests on the rote application of these simplified proxies, which is why silly and ignorant people find it so easy to 'qualify' from their training schools.

As with much of their jargon and overblown claims they are hoist on their own petards.
 
Badly Shaved Monkey said:
Craniosacral therapists such as our dear Sarah claim to intuit the whole state of the body by palpating (non-existent) pulsations in the cerebrospinal fluid detectable as movements in the skull bones.

Reflexology has the whole body mapped on the feet.

Reiki masters detect the "energy" field of the body with their hands.
Click to expand...
Don't forget those cah-razy iridologists.
 
Valmorian said:
Is the "holistic" thing a red-herring? Can someone show me an Alternative Medicine that actually DOES act differently in practice than Allopathic Medicine?
Click to expand...

So, in reply to your question, it is pretty much axiomatic that complementary and alternative medicine are not holistic by their very nature, whereas conventional medicine can be, so the fish is a herring and its colour is red.
 
BronzeDog said:
Don't forget those cah-razy iridologists.
Click to expand...

"Look into my eyes, not around my eyes, look into my eyes."

When a hypnotist meets an iridologist, who wins?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom