BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Alternative medicine

  
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
 
illmatic
12:19 / 23.08.05
Funnily enough, the fact that I can't distingush to my own satisfaction between predjudice, bias and so on with regards to this subject, is why I ended up asking for information about people's experiences. Anecodtal information (if the person is not a "true believer") carries a certain amount of weight for me. But I'm only an interested party, I'm not making decisons that will affect the nation's health and livelyhood.

whole lot more suspucion since in practice it seems to be deployed as a way of avoiding any kind of justification beyond the anecdotal

I know exactly what you mean. I believe it should be possibly for "alternative" meds (whatever that is) to succeed in trials if they have any potency beyond the placebo effect at all. Perhaps more "subtle" medicines require a more "subtle" trial, incorporating the factors that me & GGM mentioned above (as well as others)?

I'm trying to keep my eye out for bias both ways.

BTW, Fridge, I found your comments here completely fascinating. I honestly had no idea it was that ad hoc.
 
 
Smoothly
10:22 / 26.08.05
This from today’s Guardian surprised me.

Around 42% of GPs in England will refer patients to a homeopath. In Scotland, where homeopathy has taken off to an even greater extent, 86% are said to be in favour of it.

I had no idea. I thought homeopathy was on the shonkier end of alternative medicine spectrum, and am surprised that so many GP’s believe it to be effective. Perhaps these referrals only happen in terminal cases or where there is no other treatment, but I don’t know. Had anyone here been referred to a homeopath by their doctor?

Which makes me think of Lurid’s point:

I have some sympathy for this point of view, but a whole lot more suspicion since in practice it seems to be deployed as a way of avoiding any kind of justification beyond the anecdotal. Given that I'd be extremely unhappy to see this kind of standard extended to the drugs pushed by the big, bad pharm companies, I'm not sure that it amounts to much more than special pleading.

How do we know they’re not?
 
 
Evil Scientist
11:44 / 26.08.05
(/mild threadrot/) In reference to comments made slightly further up the thread regarding thalidomide. Even though this drug is usually held up as the prime example of a harmful drug administered without full comprehension to the public. It's apparently used commonly these days to treat certain conditions caused by the long-term use of anti-leprousy drugs. (/homeopathic threadrot cure taken...no result....actual anti-threadrot drugs administered...success/)
 
 
Smoothly
12:10 / 26.08.05
As I understand it, Thalidomide is a fantastic drug, just as long as you don’t get pregnant. Not only is it a near miracle cure for the most painful symptoms of leprosy, I believe that it’s been having remarkable success treating some types of cancer and a number of HIV related conditions – possibly various other things. Obviously it should never be used to relieve morning sickness, but I don’t quite understand why it shouldn’t be used elsewhere combined with a contraceptive, or why it’s not prescribed for men.

I wonder if this is a kinda reversal of status some alternative treatments which have little demonstrable medical value, but continue to be popular because of positive associations.
Is there any evidence of a reverse-placebo effect where the efficacy is reduced because of a negative perception of the treatment?
 
 
Ariadne
12:28 / 26.08.05
There's an article on the BBC saying that the Lancet has attacked homeopathy. It's 'no better than dummy drugs' and doctors should be honest with patients about its 'lack of benefit'.
 
 
Ariadne
12:32 / 26.08.05
Sorry, that'll teach me to read links - it's reporting on the same story as the Guardian.
 
 
illmatic
13:34 / 26.08.05
Fascinating story. Following Smoothly's point about negative placebo, does anyone know what percentage of cases placebo is thought to act in, on average?

I remember reading about this before and finding it really high - something like 30%? Which suggests to me we should do a lot more investigation of the effect.
 
 
Smoothly
13:40 / 26.08.05
I think it's contentious. From wikipedia:

It is still controversial if a placebo effect exists. A part of the controversy may be due to the fact that patients who have been given a drug (or a placebo for that matter) will often report improvement earlier and more eagerly in order to please and thank the care giver. These patients may even do this when there is no real physical improvement attained. Hence, there is uncertainty over the real size of the placebo effect. An often quoted number is that about one third of patients improve on a placebo, but a recent study has called that number into question, claiming that the effect is much smaller, if it exists at all. The 30 percent figure derives from a paper by Henry Beecher, published in 1955 (H. Beecher, 1955). Beecher was one of the leading advocates of the need to evaluate treatments by means of double-blind trials and this helps to explain why it has been so widely quoted.

There is also the question of how much of the effect is regression to the mean. I was wondering this about the talk of using Rescue Remedy to treat anxiety, anxiety being one of those things that ebbs and flows a lot. Post hoc ergo procter hoc and all that.
 
 
Disco is My Class War
01:35 / 27.08.05
Rescue Remedy does work, definitely. And it's not just an emotional or psychic change -- like the ebbing of anxiety. I notice that my heart-rate slows down, my muscles relax, and the rate of adrenaline flowing through my body really drops if I take it. Particularly with insomnia, it works like magic. And like GGM, I've spent years coping with sleeping problems, have tried pills, valerian, chamomile tea, meditating and yoga before I go to bed, making myself get up insanely early... None of it really worked, because none of it targeted adrenaline.

I also hate the bunching of a whole lot of different therapies under 'alternative medicine': for a start, because 'alternative' assumes that Western or allopathic medicine is the mainstream, such a bloody Eurocentric assumption. And there's no guarantee that a person who gets good results with one therapy will get good results with another. I think a lot of 'natural' therapies depend on the practitioner's skills; moreover, the practitioner needs the capacity to take you somewhere else for a while.

Take kinesiology, for example -- a weird kind of intuitive muscle testing that assumes your body knows what it needs to fix itself wrt everything from flower essences to the kind of 'spirits' that need to be 'cleared'. I had one session where the kinesiologist said all this mumbo jumbo about clearing nasty spirits, looking at my past, etc. I believed none of it but let myself go with her, anyhow, and left feeling like my entire psyche had just been steam-cleaned. I was floating. Recently I went to a different kinesiologist who talked a lot about particular chemicals that could be making my immune system fuck up. This was so abstract and rationalised and intellectual that I felt nothing. And nothing has happened. But the method in both cases was the same: testing my muscles to see what my body 'wanted'. It's the same with acupuncture: my acupuncturist listens to whatever the hell is happening in my life, then sends me off to endorphinland where, somehow, she can make me less irritable and anxious for at least a couple of months afterwards. Who knows what happens, I just trust her. If I didn't, it probably wouldn't work. She talks about acupuncture in a postmodern, post-strucuralist way: as a system of signs that have material effects.
 
 
Smoothly
14:13 / 27.08.05
I think a lot of 'natural' therapies depend on the practitioner's skills

What are 'unnatural' therapies?
 
 
Papess
14:19 / 27.08.05
How about chemo-therapy, Smoothly? Unnatural enough?
 
 
Smoothly
14:34 / 27.08.05
What makes it unnatural, Strix?
 
 
w1rebaby
14:58 / 27.08.05
Well, the chemicals used are not naturally occurring. Though you get into the whole "what does natural really mean" thing there which isn't very helpful.

All therapies rely on somebody's skill at some point, anyway, whether it's in formulating the drug, identifying what drugs and when will be the most beneficial, slicing the right bits or talking to the patient in the right way beforehand.
 
 
Smoothly
16:34 / 27.08.05
Well, the chemicals used are not naturally occurring.

What do you mean, 'not naturally occurring'? Bach's Rescue remedy doesn't fall from the sky.

Though you get into the whole "what does natural really mean" thing there which isn't very helpful.

I disagree. I think it's enormously helpful, particularly when people are claiming that what they do is natural, and things other people do are unnatural.
 
 
w1rebaby
17:39 / 27.08.05
Rescue Remedy is also unnatural, if chemo is.

I think it's unhelpful because it just leads to derailing fights. Clearly everything is derived from the "natural world", unless there any supernatural medicines out there. Arguments on the topic tend to polarise the arguers between the "humans are natural therefore anything humans do is natural" camp and the "human activity is unnatural and when humans manipulate things they become unnatural" camp.

You get lots of stuff about monkeys and birds using tools, and whether nuclear power is natural, and so on, and more importantly it doesn't go anywhere, because saying something is "natural" doesn't actually say anything else about it whatever your position; things you find growing wild are just as capable of killing you if you eat them as things humans make. Whenever I've seen anybody making a claim as to something being good because it's natural they either mean something else (e.g. something is less processed and more likely to be tolerated by the body, or contains fewer impurities of type X) or they're irrational primitivists without a clear idea of what they're talking about.

I'd remove the word from all discussion if I could, I think it's instrinsically useless and confusing.
 
 
HCE
20:36 / 27.08.05
I have personally found that Advil works extremely well for me, but things like over-the-counter general cough & cold medicines do not. Massage and tea work very well for me, homeopathic remedies do not. Vitamins seem to make me feel better only insofar as I feel like I'm doing something. Overall, whether traditional or alternative, some medicines make me feel better and some seem to do nothing, or make me feel worse. There is no pattern to it that I can discern, other than that antibiotics are always pretty effective.
 
 
Papess
22:17 / 27.08.05
How about naturally occuring, as in nature rather than some highly processed concoction? Which would mean the proper terms in this discussion should be holistic and atomistic instead of natural and unnatural...as that leads to debate over what is truly "natural".
 
 
Smoothly
00:28 / 28.08.05
How about naturally occuring, as in nature rather than some highly processed concoction?

But what is nature if not a highly processed concoction?

I not sure that holistic and atomistic are any better, to be honest. It's not as if conventional Western medicine is never holistic or alternative medicine never atomistic. Chemotherapy involves a range of different treatments that address different aspects of the illness. Necking Rescue Remedy to get to sleep is hardly holistic.
 
 
Papess
15:59 / 28.08.05
But what is nature if not a highly processed concoction?

You are arguing the naturalness of nature, Smoothly? You are just having a go at me, right?

Nature's concoction is naturally occuring. That is the point. It hasn't been tampered with by humans in order to be.



HOWEVER, that is not the real issue in regards to alternative medicine. This is....

I not sure that holistic and atomistic are any better, to be honest. It's not as if conventional Western medicine is never holistic or alternative medicine never atomistic.

You are misunderstanding what these terms mean. Holistic Medicine refers to using the relationship between mind, body (possibly "spirit", whatever that means...let's not get into that though) and environment; plus the relationship between different points/organs on the body itself to administer treatment. Holistic medicine seeks to treat the root cause of disease not just symptoms. It treats the whole of one's life.

On the other hand, Allopathic or conventional medicine is more atomistic. It treats symtoms with Orthomolecular medicine (pharmaceuticals) and/or Complementary medicine (therapeutic and diagnostic disciplines). Often the symptoms are treated and the root cause(s) are left untreated especially in the case of Orthomolecular medicine. Combining Orthomolecular and Complementary medicine is approaching the philosophy and practices of Holistic medicine but still not as inclusive as Holistic therapy is. Allopathic medicine generally tends to treat illness in it's parts, or atomistically.

In recent history of Allopathic medical practices, it has been recognized of the importance of treating illness/dis-ease holistically. The scope of treatment has been broadened, mimicking that of Holistic therapy. This is not the standard in Allopathy YET, but it is certainly becoming more popular by the established conventional western medical institution to do so. Thus, there is some overlapping now as allopathy becomes more holistic in practice. There is still some way to go before allopathy is considered to be truly holistic, as there are distinct differences in philosophy and treatment.

Complementary medicine actually used to be called Alternative medicine at one time, (as in an alternative to orthomolecular medicine). However, in order to clarify different branches of medicine more succinctly we now use the term "complementary medicine". The term "alternative medicine" is now used as synonymous with "holistic medicine".

Chemotherapy involves a range of different treatments that address different aspects of the illness. Necking Rescue Remedy to get to sleep is hardly holistic.

Yet, chemotherapy is still not holistic in nature. Despite addressing different symptoms (not aspects) it still deals with disease atomistically. Often it is coupled with Radiation treatment as well. Radiation is a local treatment that affects cancer cells only in the treated area and chemotherapy binds to and specifically kills microbes or tumor cells. Neither of these treatments deals with the actual cause of cancer, even if it may "cure" it. This is not holistic medicine in theory or practice.

Another point about these particular conventional therapies is they tend to destroy healthy cells as well and cause further ailments to arise due to the therapy itself, and not due to Herring's law of cure. This is definately not holistic, either.

Also, if you are "necking" Rescue Remedy to sleep, you are't following the instructions, as has already been stated here. You might as well have a shot of brandy. I would add though: while Rescue Remedy is an alternative therapy, in and of itself it is certainly not holistic.
 
 
Ganesh
16:42 / 28.08.05
I'm not sure that differentiation between "symptoms" and "root cause" is any more helpful, really. As a doctor, I frequently find myself disagreeing with my patient as to what, precisely, is the "root cause" of his/her "symptoms". With depression, for example, I might readily conceptualise the "root cause" as being a combination of crappy situational factors (bad housing, unsatisfying job, rocky relationship) and personality type (which hugely influences the coping mechanisms a particular individual might use to deal with his/her situation). In that situation, is prescribing a conventional antidepressant any less "holistic" than, I dunno, some sort of homeopathic alternative?
 
 
Papess
16:58 / 28.08.05
Ganesh, I specifically stayed away from any psychological/psychiatric examples because it does seem to get more complicated in these areas. I would almost agree that in these disciplines the cause and symptoms can nearly indistinguishable. Yet it still even isn't that cut and dry now, is it?
 
 
Papess
17:05 / 28.08.05
In that situation, is prescribing a conventional antidepressant any less "holistic" than, I dunno, some sort of homeopathic alternative?

A holistic practitioner would most likely not try to treat with just a simple orally administered therapy whether homeopathic or not.
 
 
Ganesh
23:28 / 28.08.05
A holistic practitioner would most likely not try to treat with just a simple orally administered therapy whether homeopathic or not.

Neither would I.

How would a holistic practitioner approach the situation outlined above?
 
 
Disco is My Class War
15:30 / 29.08.05
The scare quotes around natural were my way of indicating awarenes of the whole natural/unnatural discussion that just took place above. Blah blah.

Emotional health is one of the things I'm most interested in when attempting to designate 'holistic' versus 'atomistic' health practices. I don't think those two poles are very good for differentiating between 'Western' and 'non-Western' therapies either. I know homeopaths who would prescribe a course of pillule or droplet remedies for depression. Herbalists might tell a patient to drink lots of St John's Wort tea. They might say, "Get a massage and are you in therapy?" but that's not holistic health practice, by my standards. Holistic health practice would look at the whole of a person's life and figure out various factors that might align together. Which means it's not only about targeting the body or the mind, but looking at the ways in which physical conditions effect emotional health and vice versa. So, a bit of counselling and figuring out stressors; background; looking at diet and exercise, and what is preventing someone from eating well and being in touch with their body; then maybe particular therapies for particular factors?

I feel that as long as this discussion is around trying to figure out the proper terms to use, we are lost in a seas of competing definitions and everyone's personal investments in those definitions. I am far more interested in (other) answers to Ganesh's question.
 
 
Papess
15:51 / 29.08.05
Ganesh: Seeing how I already defined Holistic treatment as being based on a mind/body diagnostic, Psychiatry seems to be very close to holistic in nature. Probably why conventional western medical practioners have taken so long to accept it's validity over the years and considered it a bit of quackery.

How would a holistic practitioner approach the situation outlined above?

I absolutely refuse to answer that. I may know a thing or two about holistic therapy, but you are the psychiatrist. You should be able to, with a bit of research, answer this question better than myself.
 
 
Ganesh
16:02 / 29.08.05
I think I have a fair idea, and I don't think it would differ hugely from how I, a fairly conventional/orthodox UK psychiatrist, would approach the situation. This is why I'm not sure 'holistic' versus 'non-holistic' is necessarily helpful in terms of framing things - at least where the likes of depression/unhappiness/dissatisfaction are concerned.
 
 
Smoothly
16:03 / 29.08.05
But what is nature if not a highly processed concoction?

You are arguing the naturalness of nature, Smoothly? You are just having a go at me, right?

No, neither. You were defining natural as occurring in nature *rather than* some highly processed concoction. I was saying that nature *is* a highly processed concoction, so the contrast seems like an odd one.

Nature's concoction is naturally occurring. That is the point. It hasn't been tampered with by humans in order to be.

And you think *I'm* being circular.

Looks like fridgemagnet's prediction was spot on. If you want to take it as axiomatic that humans are not part of nature (because they're somehow not naturally occurring, I suppose), there's nothing I can say to change your mind.

Holistic Medicine refers to using the relationship between mind, body (possibly "spirit", whatever that means...let's not get into that though)

Seems odd to me that while homo sapiens are not part of nature, 'spirit' apparently is. So why not get into that? The spiritual aspects of alternative medicine have come up a few times, and I'd like to hear a bit more about it.

Often the symptoms are treated and the root cause(s) are left untreated especially in the case of Orthomolecular medicine.

Are they? Evidence please. And I'm not a doctor, so no dodging.
 
 
Papess
16:27 / 29.08.05
I never said humans were not part of nature. I am saying that humans do things at a molecular level that are not naturally occuring in our enviroment, such as making synthetic replacements for chemicals that are naturally produced in the body.

I have tried to explain though, that using "natural" and "unnatural" to try and define Holistic therapy is inadequate.

As far as evidence goes, I can think of one obvious one.

A cold.

For many years people have been prescribed medicine to stop symptoms of runny noses and coughing up phlegm, when in fact this is the body's way of eliminating toxins from the body. Instead of helping the body do this drugs have been prescribed to cease this function.

I really don't think that it should be left to me to provide all the answers. Go research this yourself if you are honestly curious and come back and give us your evidence for disproving or proving your own theories.
 
 
Smoothly
16:41 / 29.08.05
For many years people have been prescribed medicine to stop symptoms of runny noses and coughing up phlegm, when in fact this is the body's way of eliminating toxins from the body. Instead of helping the body do this drugs have been prescribed to cease this function.

Well, more than that. You're likely to be advised to get rest, keep warm, drink plenty of fluids, eat right... etc. If a cough is preventing you from sleeping, it seems justifiable to prescribe something to reduce that.

So, what do you think are the root causes of the common cold, and how would holistic medicine treat it?

And why should the onus be on me to research your assertion that 'Often the symptoms are treated and the root cause(s) are left untreated especially in the case of Orthomolecular medicine.' It's your claim, you back it up.
 
 
Papess
17:01 / 29.08.05
It is not my claim. It is a claim that Holistic practitioners have made over the years. The evidence is theirs too.

I am not here to defend holistic practices, nor disprove them. I will leave that to the rest of the people here. My beliefs are mine and it is useless to try and waste my time and energy arguing about the validity of them here. I am not trying to convert anyone to believe as I do, or convert them to holistic or allopathic medicine.

And you really want me to diagnose the common cold?

I think I am being singled out here. Go ask a doctor and a holistic practitioner for their diagnosis and prescriptions. You'll get a better comparison if you are actually interested in finding that out rather than roping me into an argument.

I refuse to argue about this.
 
 
Ganesh
17:15 / 29.08.05
Actually, Smoothly's asking about aetiology and proposed treatment rather than diagnosis. I don't think you're being 'singled out', though, Strix, or asked to "argue"; you're merely being asked to back up your own claims.
 
 
Ganesh
17:21 / 29.08.05
I suppose one problem is that, illnesses tending often to be multifactorial, it's often difficult to pinpoint the "root cause" of something - and not just in those conditions deemed the province of the psychiatrist.
 
 
Papess
17:49 / 29.08.05
As I said before Ganesh, they are not my claims.
 
 
Ganesh
17:57 / 29.08.05
You're reiterating them here, though, in the context of this discussion. It seems reasonable, therefore, for you to discuss them.
 
 
Papess
18:29 / 29.08.05
Ganesh, if you would please understand, everytime I make a post the amount of evidence that is required of me is much more than the average poster here. I am asked to prove things that have taken professionals years of research to prove or disprove. I am simply stating the general perceptions of holistic practioners based on what I have read. I am not qualified to prescibe, diagnose or speculate on etiology, in a manner that would satisfy you or Smoothly. I think it is ridiculous to ask me to do any of those things.

Now, this is a discussion on alternative therapies and people's OPINIONS of them, not a bloody dissertation. Let's continue with the topic.

I really do not want to engage in a heated debate over this.
 
  

Page: 1(2)3

 
  
Add Your Reply