Medicine & Practice East v West

G

gongey

Guest
Medicine & Practice East v West

Health shops are springing up everywhere in Dublin offering latest "ancient" and natural methods to cure all ails. Has Ireland become more open to alternative ways of healing or are we dependent still on Western methods of guzzling presribed chemicals?

I'm a believer in going to the doctor, getting tests, getting checked out and taking my prescribed medicines when necessary. Is this the best way to go about things though? Does my body really need chemicals to sort problems out or is there a benefit in using alternative medicines.

Mass marketing and general belief is that the doctor and medicines are the best way to go. Is it just that alternative methods are not marketed as much,causing us to be dubious of their benefits?

I've a friend who refuses to go get a blood test. she suffers from for over-tiredness, yet claims that a natural health shop worker could "see" that it was a problem with her kidneys by looking at her tongue and indicated that acupuncture will cure her. Surely a blood test is the way to go to indicate possible problems? who's right in a situation like this?
 
I'm closer to your view, Gongey - but I do try to avoid medication where possible. Don't get me wrong - I'll guzzle down the paracetemol when the dreaded hangover strikes, but I don't feel cheated if I walk away from the Doctor's office without a perscription. In many cases, the lifestyle advice from the Doctor (diet, exercise, stress management) can be as effective or more effective than the XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.
 
Medicine & Practice East v West

I'm sure that some alternative/complementary therapies have a some sort of sound scientific basis but others are simply bunkum and any benefits that derive from them are most likely placebo effects. Brendan's favourite link might be apposite in this context:

skepdic.com/tialtmed.html
 
are we dependent still on Western methods of guzzling presribed chemicals?
Click to expand...
The thing is that the chemicals in the prescribed medicine is usually a derivative of, or a synthesis of, a naturally occurring chemical. The difference between this and the "Natural" alternative is that the US FDA and other international regulatory bodies have tested and licensed the stuff the doctor give you where as the natural remedies has not had anything like the same level of testing. This can be very important when the person taking the remedies is on other medication.
Much and all that doctors (GP's) should be criticised for having restrictive entry practices into their industry and so can earn supernormal profits by controlling supply, they are till the only real option for a scientific diagnosis of an illness. They have a training and clinical backup that no one else can offer.
That is not to say that alternative medicine has nothing to offer but considering the amount of money that pharmaceutical companies spend on research every year if there was any "silver bullet" alternative herbal treatment they would have derived it's active ingredient years ago and slapped a patent on it.
 
Medicine & Practice East and West

The female herbalists didn't have much of a P.R. machine, were persecuted as "witches" when they became powerful in their social groups. Their practice was replaced by male organised druggists, the apothecaries, who networked within an all-male guild.

As has been noted many pharmaceuticals used today are mimetics of naturally-occurring healing substances (e.g. Digoxin used for heart-conditions works in the same way as digitalis or foxglove). However taking it "straight" from the foxglove would be very dangerous. In other words, anyone who gets involved with what is today called "alternative medicine" or "natural healing" would need to really know her onions (if you'll excuse the pun!) It is very powerful stuff and not for dabblers.......so if you go to anyone claiming to be a practitioner try to establish their training, ethics and provinance of the substances they use.

Not surprisingly given the history of pharmacology (and incidentally, psychopharmacology all you Valium fans!) there is strong anecdotal evidence that substances such as ginkgo biloba, Echinacea, Evening Primrose etc. are effective. There are a number of randomised controlled trials on naturally-occurring remedies "from the garden" as countries tighten up their laws on dispensing and non-state-registered healers.

There is a Homeopathic Hospital in London which you could get details of through Google, and most practitioners like osteopaths are now self-regulating and going for State Registration. ALL have their own professional bodies with lists of qualified practitioners and all will provide advice.

One aspect of "alternative medicine" or "natural remedies" is that treatment is more holistic. Whilst conventional medicine - which incidentally I respect immensely - focusses on the symptom, "alternative therapies" tend to probe the whole life-style-whole-person, assessments are long and thorough and treatment often involves the "patient" being a great deal more pro-active in the cure than in conventional medicine.
 
Medicine & Practice East and West

> There is a Homeopathic Hospital in London

Homeopathy is a great example of something that may deliver placebo effects in some cases but which has no scientific basis:

www.bbc.co.uk/science/hor...athy.shtml
 
traditional versus modern medicine

I am not so sure that I would agree that modern drugs may be assumed to be safe, whereas

"where as the natural remedies has not had anything like the same level of testing."

Many natural remedies have the benefit of being around and in use for hundreds of years (as indeed do some modern pharmaceuticals such as aspirin - well a good long while anyway). They have therefore been subjected to the best of all tests - long usage.

The likelihood of unanticipated side effects (for example those which occurred with thalidomide) makes me wary of almost any newer drug, particularly when it comes to children. I don't remember where I read it, but apparently it is commonplace for drug testing to exclude research into effects on children. Perhaps somebody else with more knowledge could post a link about this?
 
Re.

But is there a database of recorded interactions with perscription drugs?
I am sure the drug companies do not test for interactions with natural remedies. Maybe they should, but they don't.
I didn't say modern drugs could be assumed to be safe per say MOB, just that they were more tested.
I think that falls into the catagory of "sweeping generalisation".
 
Re: Re.


I never cease to be amased at the number of issues that are actually about equality and the male oppression of the female.


Anyway to answer you're question:
Like anyone I'd prefer not to be sick, but if I'm sick I'd prefer my treatment to be based on rigorous scientific research rather than Old Wives Tales or Hippy Trippy Nonsense.

I consider a lot of "Natural Remedies" in the same way that I consider Astrology, Numerology, Tarot's etc, etc.

If your car breaks down you don't fix it by changing the air freshner or painting the garage, you look under the bonnet, you see what's going on and you fix it.

-Rd
 
Medicine & Practice East v West

Reminds me of that Billy Connolly one ...

"Hey this man has just been hit by a car. Is anybody here an aromatherapist!?"

:lol
 
Medicine & Practice East v West

We would all like to think that in the event of illness, or the illness of loved-ones, the "science" of pharmacology would provide antidote and healing.

Given the actual state of affairs this irrational belief is not helpful though it may be consoling. Manufactured drugs prescribed by GP's and in hospitals (a) have variable effectiveness but certainly far short of 100% (b) have different effects with different individuals (c) have side-effects which in many instances create new health problems though they may screen out - "cure" - the presenting one (d) further diminish the individual's own bio-defence system. A look at the dramatic shift in patterns of drug prescription over even the last 50 years shows the drug companies are in continuous process of withdrawing products whose harmful side-effects attract law-suits. Simultaneously they introduce "new" wonderdrugs. They sell a dream of painfree, illness free, deathfree life to the Lotus Eaters who dish over their hard-earned dosh without question. It's "science" after all!

As I suggested in my last post prescription medications mimic or have their base in naturally-occurring substances all of which have effects on the body for well or ill. As MOB pointed out the "test" of such natural substances has been that they are enduringly resorted to. Their effectiveness is demonstrated by the fact that whenever controlled trials demonstrate their effectiveness, the pharmaceutical companies take over the franchise and market them themselves. A recent example is St.John's Wort, one of the much-maligned "alternative medicines". I'm told by relatives it is now only obtainable under prescription in Ireland and I'm regularly asked to bring over top-up supplies purchased from "alternative" high-street chain Holland & Barratt at half the price.

I appreciate the scientific and open (in contrast to the pharmaceutical industry's parasitic!) relationship to "alternative medicine" demonstrated in the Australian government's (Territory of Victoria) recent extensive and expensive assessment - on a case-by-case basis - of ALL non-Western practitioners settled in the Territory and constituting a pilot for the whole of Australia, which through its location has thousands of Chinese, Indian, Javan, Indonesian, Russian etc., therapies and therapists. This was expressly NOT to control "alternative medicine" or affect the livelihood of practitioners but to understand and build upon the best of what the customer - the person with the ailment - goes seeking and finds in that particular approach.

Holding the belief that Western medicine is "right" and by implication "good" and that what are called holistic or alternative treatments are inferior, wrong or "bad" is a closed state of mind which is the antithisis to reason and science.......both of which are predicated on thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas, new ways (or in this case "old ways"!) of doing things.
 
Medicine & Practice East v West

> Holding the belief that Western medicine is "right" and by implication "good" and that what are called holistic or alternative treatments are inferior, wrong or "bad" is a closed state of mind which is the antithisis to reason and science.......both of which are predicated on thoughtfulness and openness to new ideas, new ways (or in this case "old ways"!) of doing things.

True - but don't forget the skeptical maxim "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof" and is pertinent to many alternative/complementary treatments that ostensibly provide relief (quite possibly due to placebo effects) in some cases. Of course the same applies to certain "mainstream" treatments whose low level chemical workings might be understood but whose impact on the ailment in question may not be. A good example might be certain classes of anti-depressant such as SSRIs which, we know, inhibit neurotransmitter reuptake thus increasing their levels in the brain and which, in many cases give relief from depression/anxiety/panic attacks etc. However exactly how and why this happens is not fully understood, not all patients benefit equally, and it's quite possible that other factors (including placebo factors) come into play making it difficult to determine cause and effect between the treatment and any positive effects. Better objective, scientific understanding of such matters is ultimately in all of our interests.
 
Yes I agree, Unregistered, that more objective knowledge is needed. Objectivity is difficult to maintain against the pressures of multinational pharmaceutical firms combined with the understandible human desire for palliatives and antidotes to life's tragic aspects. I get as excited as everyone else at news of "new" drugs which will diminish suffering........then slowly the news trickles out - the side effects, the very partial success. Perhaps instead of unfounded belief in either the "alternative" or mainstream healing being more thoughtful about it all - and connecting up bits of knowledge - is a helpful way forward. I have in mind the "discovery" of a medicine which was vaunted as "curing" Alzheimers, some years back. There is recent research indicating that Alzheimers is increasing as a result of the rising levels of chemical pollutants in our environment! I feel Eastern approaches to health bring different aspects of "the whole environment" together in a way which perhaps Western medicine - and scientific thought - is still struggling with currently.
 
As MOB pointed out the "test" of such natural substances has been that they are enduringly resorted to.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, that isn't a valid "Test". Tarot Cards are enduringly resorted to. Numerology is enduringly resorted to.
Psychic Phone Lines are enduringly resorted to. Palmists, Crystal Ball Gazers, Tea Leaves, Prayer and Faith Healers are all enduringly resorted to.

There is not a shred of evidence that any of these work.
On thinking about it I wouldn't put natural remedies in quite the same bracket as these. If you ingest something into your body it will do something and that something may be good.
But it's equally or more likely that is will have no effect on your illness.

The "Test" of these cures is to test them in a Lab in exactly the same way that other cures/treatments are tested.

-Rd
 
The "Test" of these cures is to test them in a Lab in exactly the same way that other cures/treatments are tested.
Click to expand...

Do you think you can really test everything in a lab? How do you test for long term side effects? You seem to be quite skeptical of the benefits of natural remedies, yet have some kind of blind faith in the pharmaceutical industry?
 
I don't have blind faith in the pharma industry. I just have more faith in it.

And I don't think you can fully test any drug natural or otherwise in a lab, I'd just prefer on balance that if I'm forced to find a cure for some illness that the cure is based on some sort of scientific rigour, rather than on old wives tales.

Interestingly there has been "A cure" in my family for years. I don't necessarily believe it does very much, but some people do and if they want it I'll make it.

-Rd
 
Medicine & Practice East v West

"Placebo effect" has been quoted a number of times with a preference for ascribing this phenomenon to "alternative" (non-mainstream) cures rather than to prescribed pharmacology (though in fact there are several recent large-scale trials in USA demonstrating large placebo components to use of prescribed medication). Does anyone have ideas as to why psychiatric patients in the UK unfailingly express preference for and opt for "talk therapy" over medication (documented in 2 - 3 recent M.I.N.D.(London) surveys conducted under the auspices of The King's Fund, and recent book by Heather Castillo of M.I.N.D. on treatment preferences of patients diagnosed with personality disorder) and the huge expenditure of cancer patients and Alzheimers/dementia on dietary and life-style regimen treatments? Whilst this could be considered an example of human foolishness and irrationality might it not also be an impulse towards self-preservation and attraction to a therapy which is intuitively felt will be helpful? This is a genuine question - I don't know.

The requirement for best-practice, evidence-based treatments and "Value for Money" (VFM) in the NHS in UK has raised issues around just what these terms actually mean. There is some evidence that though a particular procedure (e.g. minor surgery) might be "best practice" if an individual wants/expresses more belief in a pharmaceutical approach then that is the one which will produce the best outcome (i.e. have most effect on the symptoms/illness).
 
Well done

daltonr, I find your cynical realism, ability to cut to the point and dry writing style very entertaining,(even when directed at me!). Keep up the good work.
 
blind belief

Daltonr you do have great belief in "science". Unfortunately that may be misplaced. There is rigorous objective science but unfortunately not in the pharmaceutical industry which is primed by commercialism greed and hubris and is far, far from objective (as I've been trying to convey!) There are some 50-60 texts in just the past decade publicising the realities of this situation and addressing the enthrallment of the public to the spin of these multinational amoral businesses. This is a sad state of affairs but true.

Regarding the dichotomisation into "good/bad", alternative/mainstream, it is not so much a great divide as a permeable boundary and "alternative" products steadily and regularly become accepted into "mainstream" prescription categories.

As I have suggested, there is a "belief" aspect to both alternative and mainstream treatments. The validity of alternative medicine was the original poster's question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register