Will it be helpful to do more research in alternate medicine?

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you. If large companies with better research facilities include their work in various branches of alternate medicines worldwide, it will be better for everyone. The cost of cure will be reduced. People will have more options. What do you think?

 

[Meow Mix]

Peace be on you. If large companies with better research facilities include their work in various branches of alternate medicines worldwide, it will be better for everyone. The cost of cure will be reduced. People will have more options. What do you think?

That really depends. Nearly all so-called "alternative" medicine is code for "pseudoscientific quackery." Even "alternative" therapies with clinical studies suggesting positive results end up being in line with the same expected positive results for the Placebo effect (e.g., homeopathy, acupuncture, etc. have shown positive results in clinical trials but only as Placebos).

Does the patient have something that a Placebo can help -- perhaps psychosomatic symptoms, heightened stress (prescribe meditation maybe?), that sort of thing? Sure -- prescribe acupuncture or whatever, or give them a sugar pill. Same difference. That would work just fine.

However, it gets dangerous to prescribe quack medicine for real problems -- such as homeopathy to combat an infection. Some quack medicines are actually more harmful (physically, mentally or socially) than what they claim to treat: for instance, colloidal silver is just a bunk Placebo, but it can actually turn a person's skin blue -- permanently.

So, in short, sure -- prescribe meditation or acupuncture or whatever where a Placebo will suffice, but leave real evidence-based medicine for real medical problems.

There's also the ethics involved: customers can buy or pay for whatever treatment they like, but the ethics of selling quackery with falsely advertised results (e.g., any claims for results higher than Placebo effect) are pretty clear: it's wrong to sell bunk as actual medicine without a clear, in-your-face warning that the product is NOT evidence-based medical treatment.

I recall breaking down this last winter and buying one of those things that claim they can reduce/eliminate flu symptoms at onset to prevent the full blown flu from occurring, and it wasn't until I got home that I read on the package that it was homeopathic. Yes, it was my fault for not reading the package carefully, but it was ridiculous for such quack nonsense to be sold on the same shelf as ACTUAL medicine. (For the record, I tried it anyway hoping it could still function as a Placebo at least, but alas, perhaps my understanding of why homeopathy is absolute nonsense prevented this from working as I still got the full-blown flu!)

 

[sandandfoam]

Alternative medicine is fine for a runny nose.
If I'm sick I want real medicine.

 

[bjrd49]

Modern medicine has a 20% cure rate. So does the witch doctor and he takes on all comers. Emergency, crisis, and trauma medicine is what modern medicine is geared up for and they do an excellent job. For the illnesses, cancer, TB, diabetes, arthritis etc. they have no clue. Just a little food for thought. Being that in all diseases, the body is in an acid condition...why would you give an acid (pharmacueticals) to try and correct the condition? That's like giving someone another poison to cure them of poison. Go figure.

 

[Pegg]

Peace be on you. If large companies with better research facilities include their work in various branches of alternate medicines worldwide, it will be better for everyone. The cost of cure will be reduced. People will have more options. What do you think?

large companies do not want to reduce the cost for us....they want to reduce the cost for themselves, but we will still be paying high prices.

 

[YmirGF]

I recall breaking down this last winter and buying one of those things that claim they can reduce/eliminate flu symptoms at onset to prevent the full blown flu from occurring, and it wasn't until I got home that I read on the package that it was homeopathic. Yes, it was my fault for not reading the package carefully, but it was ridiculous for such quack nonsense to be sold on the same shelf as ACTUAL medicine. (For the record, I tried it anyway hoping it could still function as a Placebo at least, but alas, perhaps my understanding of why homeopathy is absolute nonsense prevented this from working as I still got the full-blown flu!)

It would appear that we see eye to eye on the issue of so-called "alternative medicine". My first thought upon reading the thread title was, "What is this 'more' nonsense?" There has been little to nil research done on many products that are sold under the homeopathic banner. People would be wise to steer far away from this form of quackery.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Peace be on you. If large companies with better research facilities include their work in various branches of alternate medicines worldwide, it will be better for everyone. The cost of cure will be reduced. People will have more options. What do you think?

They already do this.

I think some naturopathic remedies are worth more research, but in general, most alternative medicine reminds me of an old joke:

Q: What do you call alternative medicine that has a good track record of proven effectiveness and has stood up to rigorous clinical trials?

A: Medicine.

 

[Meow Mix]

Being that in all diseases, the body is in an acid condition...why would you give an acid (pharmacueticals) to try and correct the condition? That's like giving someone another poison to cure them of poison. Go figure.

The biochemistry is much more complex than that, though it's not a bad observation.

For instance, I have pretty severe ADHD (I really, honestly can barely function without my meds); and the meds they prescribe me for hyperactivity is chemically equivalent to cocaine (amphetamine salts). It works, though. Sometimes the biochemistry works out such that you need a little of what would intuitively be thought of as "the same poison" to treat your other "poison".

 

[DawudTalut]

Peace be on you.
Some reports cannot be ignored though: e.g.

1-"Homeopathy In India is Very Popular and Successful
It is estimated that there are over 250,000 homeopaths in India. Homeopathy is on par legally with conventional medicine, (homeopaths call conventional medicine Allopathy) and there are many Colleges of homeopathy including some that give post graduate degrees in homeopathy. It has attracted great support because…it works!..."
Homeopathy In India is Very Popular and Successful | Official Homeopathy Resource

2- "Patients Find Success in Mainstreaming of Chinese Medicine"
Patients Find Success in Mainstreaming of Chinese Medicine - NAM

3- I think, it is essential to see proper expert of the field.

4- ADHD in homeopathic...(just for ref) Treatments for ADHD: Homeopathic Remedies for Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)

5- Day by day, cost of cure is rising in world and people with lesser resources are having difficulties.

6- More thorough research is also needed for food-based cures too.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Homeopathy is nothing more than placebo. There haven't been any peer-reviewed double-blind studies that show any evidence whatsoever that homeopathy actually works. In fact, as it doesn't work it causes more harm than good, because some people will use it instead of actual medicine. As 9/10ths Penguin said earlier in the topic, alternative medicine with actual evidence for it's efficiency is just called medicine.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Modern medicine has a 20% cure rate. So does the witch doctor and he takes on all comers. Emergency, crisis, and trauma medicine is what modern medicine is geared up for and they do an excellent job. For the illnesses, cancer, TB, diabetes, arthritis etc. they have no clue. Just a little food for thought. Being that in all diseases, the body is in an acid condition...why would you give an acid (pharmacueticals) to try and correct the condition? That's like giving someone another poison to cure them of poison. Go figure.

Do you have any evidence to back this up?

Claiming that actual medicine is like poison is quite a bold claim.

 

[ratikala]

dear mycorrhiza ,

Homeopathy is nothing more than placebo.

"nothing more than placebo" ? ...only according to the chemical companies who are protecting their interests .

Do you have any evidence to back this up ,

"eveidence" ? ....yes, people that it has worked for but for some reason that isnt enough for some people?

Claiming that actual medicine is like poison is quite a bold claim.

the side efects of allopathic medicines can at times be very severe , severe enough to need another drug to combat the side effects ! ... many of these medicines are used in strengths which are toxic , ... a toxin is a poison !

some medicines concidered alternative are equaly toxic , however homeopathy uses such minute doses that there is no harm or toxicity .

sadly I feel that too many have been taken in by the chemical industrys propaganda , and beleive that allopathic medicine is the only way .
modern science has come up with some wonderfull discoveries , many of these have been derived from natural sources , it is just a matter of development and research into the apilcation of doses ,however many in current use are crudely synthesised chemical substitutes which are known to be toxic , it is simply that we have learnt to accept the side effects because we want the cure .

sorry to be cynical but I firmly beleive that the chemical industry has done its best to disscredit homeopathy in order to protect its own interests and proffits .

if any one chooses to dissbeleive in the benifits of what are concidered the alternative medicines that is their prerogative but in the opinion of many also their loss .

 

[TommyDar]

Most alternative medicine, I think, is nonsense and I say this as a non-Western person.

That being said, if one is not seriously ill, and folk medicines can be used to alleviate the symptoms of an illness until it passes, then I don't see a problem with their use. For example, I once used some herbal soups to soothe a sore throat. However, if I had some other sickness, I would want to use Western medicine.

 

[mycorrhiza]

dear mycorrhiza ,

"nothing more than placebo" ? ...only according to the chemical companies who are protecting their interests .

It's considered a placebo by a huge majority of the scientists who work in medicine. There is no peer-reviewed evidence that homeopathy works. It's not a huge conspiracy.

People have taken massive overdoses of homeopathic medicines without feeling any effect, because in the dilutions that are legal for sale (in most places) there are no active ingredients. However, badly made homeopathic medicine might still contain highly toxic substances.

"eveidence" ? ....yes, people that it has worked for but for some reason that isnt enough for some people?

Sugar pills work for many illnesses, yet sugar isn't known as a medicine. It's simply the placebo effect.

the side efects of allopathic medicines can at times be very severe , severe enough to need another drug to combat the side effects ! ... many of these medicines are used in strengths which are toxic , ... a toxin is a poison !

Yes, there are side effects to medicines, but they still work. Artificially made medicines are not toxins, as toxins are by definition produced inside living organisms.

some medicines concidered alternative are equaly toxic , however homeopathy uses such minute doses that there is no harm or toxicity .

And that's because there are no traces left of the "active ingredient". It's simply water.

sadly I feel that too many have been taken in by the chemical industrys propaganda , and beleive that allopathic medicine is the only way .
modern science has come up with some wonderfull discoveries , many of these have been derived from natural sources , it is just a matter of development and research into the apilcation of doses ,however many in current use are crudely synthesised chemical substitutes which are known to be toxic , it is simply that we have learnt to accept the side effects because we want the cure .

Yes, many of the actual medicines have natural origins. However, it's often both safer and cheaper to synthesise the active substance.

sorry to be cynical but I firmly beleive that the chemical industry has done its best to disscredit homeopathy in order to protect its own interests and proffits .

I don't believe there is a huge conspiracy against homeopathic medicine. Not even independent studies, with no connection whatsoever to the chemical industry, have shown positive results for homeopathy. If homeopathy worked, the pharmaceutical companies could produce that as well and get even more profit.

You're allowed to use homeopathic medicine, it's your body, but please don't try to encourage other people to do it. It's very dangerous to treat serious medical conditions with homeopathic preparations instead of actual medicine.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Peace be on you. If large companies with better research facilities include their work in various branches of alternate medicines worldwide, it will be better for everyone. The cost of cure will be reduced. People will have more options. What do you think?

They already do this.

I think some naturopathic remedies are worth more research, but in general, most alternative medicine reminds me of an old joke:

Q: What do you call alternative medicine that has a good track record of proven effectiveness and has stood up to rigorous clinical trials?

A: Medicine.

The second quote above is pretty much my response. I would add, however, that large companies would be racing to produce alternative medicines which held up under standard trials if they could. In fact, a good deal of psychotropic medicine is effective largely due to placebo, was discovered by accident, is prescribed frequently for "off label" uses, and/or was shown to be effective in a system which is inherently biased towards significant results.

Nor is it true that researchers and companies are not using their resources to investigate "alternative" remedies, as
1) a good deal of medicines are prescribed for conditions because they were accidently discovered to be effective
2) Those interested in promoting "traditional" or "alternative" remedies have exploited many of the same problems with clinical trials that drug companies created.

When I was going through the literature on epilepsy and similar neurological disorders/diseases, one of the volumes I read was Acupuncture Therapy for Neurological Diseases: A Neurobiological View. It was published in 2010 by Springer, a specialty press which is at least close to the top (and probably is the top) among academic publishing companies responsible for scientific/mathematical journals, books, monograph series, etc. It also cost me something like $200 or $300, as (like most such volumes) it is considered specialty literature purchased almost solely by research labs, academic departments, R&D companies, etc. Nor is it alone; there are similar volumes which are likewise considered part of the scientific literature on other alternative therapies/medicines and for other conditions. There are also entire journals devoted to to such remedies. And the research behind them is funded by various grants, many of them from companies looking to market the next "miracle cure".

If there is a distinct lack of mainstream use of various "alternative" remedies, it isn't because "large companies" are refusing to fund research. They already do plenty to manipulate the process required for a drug or therapy to be approved. Were there a way to obtain FDA approval for the pills that currently lack it and require labels saying so, companies would be falling over one another to do so.

 

[DawudTalut]

You're allowed to use homeopathic medicine, it's your body, but please don't try to encourage other people to do it. It's very dangerous to treat serious medical conditions with homeopathic preparations instead of actual medicine.

I have seen, homeopathic medicines work well for some people but they do not work for others. It works well in certain illnesses. Its founder was a allopath doctor (as they call 'real doctor') in Germany as I recall. I knew a allopathl doctor who latter studied and started to practice homeopathy. He was more successful than simple homeopathic doctor.

If one uses it in serious diseases where time is important, have regular blood tests etc, so that one may know what really is happening; if results are not good, do not hesitate to switch to allopath.

The Source of all knowledge is Same.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I have seen, homeopathic medicine works well for some people but it does not work for others.

And why do you think that is?

It works well in certain illnesses.

Do you have any scientific studies to back that up?

Its founder was a allopath doctor (real doctor) in Germany as I recall.

In the late 1700s / early 1800s. Medicine wasn't very advanced back then. It was before the germ theory of disease.

If one uses it in serious diseases where time is important, have regular blood tests etc, so that one may know what really is happening; if results are not good, do not hesitate to switch to allopath.

I'd recommend actual medicine first. Especially if time is important.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Does chiropractic medicine and meditation fall under alternative medicine still? Or are they considered more mainstream? I'm of the generation that looks at both with a little suspect (I personally rely on them for my health).

Not that long ago, both were considered quackery. What's the general consensus now, out of curiosity?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Does chiropractic medicine and meditation fall under alternative medicine still? Or are they considered more mainstream? I'm of the generation that looks at both with a little suspect (I personally rely on them for my health).

Not that long ago, both were considered quackery. What's the general consensus now, out of curiosity?

AFAIK, the consensus is that both have real effects. Whether they're considered quackery depends on the individual practitioner and what claims they make about them.

Back in the day, chiropractors would claim that virtually all ailments were caused by spinal "subluxations". AFAIK, most have retreated to something much more reasonable and only put themselves forward as treating back and spine problems... IMO, that's fine. But there are still some chiropractors who claim that they can treat asthma, for instance, with back manipulations. I'd say that crosses the line into quackery.

Also, I think it's worth pointing out that many chiropractors don't only offer chiropractic services. If they're also doing things like craniosacral therapy, then that can make the difference.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I have seen, homeopathic medicines work well for some people but they do not work for others. It works well in certain illnesses.

I don't think you have seen this, actually.

I have no doubt that you've seen people under the care of homeopaths, but I question whether you've ever been in a position to confirm that homeopathy is effective.

We have natural healing ability. Some conditions will just get better on their own regardless of what treatments we have.

Often, people who go to a homeopath also go to a real doctor at the same time. When someone feels better after taking sugar pills AND real medicine, it's a bit specious to assume that it was the sugar pills that did it.

Also, as has been pointed out, you'll still get a placebo effect from fake treatment.

So all in all, I don't think you have proper evidence to support the claim that homeopathy works. As they say, the plural of "anecdote" is not "data".

Its founder was a allopath doctor (as they call 'real doctor') in Germany as I recall.

Homeopathy was created by Samuel Hahnemann in the late 18th Century... i.e. before the germ theory of disease became accepted.

He recognized that the treatment methodologies of the time - e.g. bloodletting - were harmful and looked for alternatives. He came up with homeopathy and saw that it got better results than average... which makes sense, since on the whole, a treatment that does nothing at all is better for a sick person than covering them with leeches.

Homeopathy was a plausible enough hypothesis in an era before the evidence was in, but in the past 200+ years, the evidence has come in, and it's shown that homeopathy was wrong.

Samuel Hahnemann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia