|
Author
|
Topic: Holistic Doctors, and medicine
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18350 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 1.0
|
|
Message 181 of 304 (418601)
08-29-2007 8:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 179 by riVeRraT
08-29-2007 7:59 AM
|
|
But Thats Not Natural
I once had a Doctor who was not only a Chiropractor but a Physicians assistant. He knew the ins and outs of supplements, snake oils, and pharmaceuticals. Once, I wanted to lose weight and had a sluggish metabolism. His first advice was for me to force myself to become more active. I asked him at the time if I could have something to use that would jumpstart my metabolism, and he recommended a new diet pill known as Didrex which was related to although not classified as an amphetamine. I asked him at the time if it would be better for me to take a natural supplement such as Ma Haung . His reply was that the pharmaceuticals essentially did the same thing to the body that the natural substances did, yet could be monitored and controlled better since they were purer, more predictable, and consistent in dosage. More people have died taking natural stimulants than have died taking Didrex. Moral: Natural does not always mean better.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 179 by riVeRraT, posted 08-29-2007 7:59 AM | | riVeRraT has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 182 of 304 (418602)
08-29-2007 8:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 177 by nator
08-28-2007 6:16 PM
|
|
Testing Testing
quote:
Why, then, are ND's allowed to prescribe any treatment or theraputic substance which hasn't been rigorously tested and shown to be safe and effective?
Because state and federal legislature don't prevent it yet. Remember, from a government standpoint safe as it relates to health means the health benefits outweigh the risks. Effectiveness is still relative to the person even on substances that have been rigorously tested.
quote:
You just said upthread that "both have their place" in healthcare, didn't you?
Yes, I did. I'm probably more an advocate of complementary medicine, than alternative. IOW, using naturopathy together with conventional medicine, not in place of.
quote:
Are you saying that untested treatments have their place alongside tested treatments in healthcare?
A truly untested treatment no, but to me a truly untested treatment means it has never been used on humans.
NCCAMRigorous research on this whole medical system is taking place but is at an early stage. Our government considers Naturopathy to be a generally safe approach to healthcare when used as complementary to conventional medicine.
quote:
And do you agree that Naturopathy's basis is in a "unifying life force" and the mystical idea of vitalism?
No. It focuses on treating the whole person with natural means such as diet, exercise, vitamins and herbal products.
The practice of naturopathy is based on six key principles: 1. Promote the healing power of nature.2. First do no harm. Naturopathic practitioners choose therapies with the intent to keep harmful side effects to a minimum and not suppress symptoms. 3. Treat the whole person. Practitioners believe a person's health is affected by many factors, such as physical, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social ones. Practitioners consider all these factors when choosing therapies and tailor treatment to each patient. 4. Treat the cause. Practitioners seek to identify and treat the causes of a disease or condition, rather than its symptoms. They believe that symptoms are signs that the body is trying to fight disease, adapt to it, or recover from it. 5. Prevention is the best cure. Practitioners teach ways of living that they consider most healthy and most likely to prevent illness. 6. The physician is a teacher. Practitioners consider it important to educate their patients in taking responsibility for their own health.
National Center for Complementary and Alternative MedicineNational Institutes of Health, The Nation's Research AgencyU.S. Department of Health & Human Services quote:
Lastly, a definition of "balance" as Naturopathy uses it would be most welcome, if the definition I have gleaned is inaccurate.
Biological HomeostasisThe homeostatic maintenance of internal bodily conditions within tolerable limits is one fundamental characteristic of living things. In order for an organism's life systems to function properly, the tissues and cells require appropriate conditions. Homeostasis depends on the dynamic action and interaction of a number of body systems.[1] Factors such as temperature, salinity, acidity, plus nutrient and waste balances all affect a complex organism's ability to sustain life.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by nator, posted 08-28-2007 6:16 PM | | nator has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 183 of 304 (418604)
08-29-2007 8:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 181 by Phat
08-29-2007 8:28 AM
|
|
Re: But Thats Not Natural
quote:
Moral: Natural does not always mean better.
What you have to look at is the human manipulation of natural. From your Ma Haung article.
Many herbalists agree that the intact ma huang stem is much safer to use for medicinal purposes than its alkaloid extracts. As an example, pure ephedrine raises blood pressure, whereas ephedra stems reduces it. Comparing the alkaloid pseudoephedrine with the entire plant, the entire plant causes fewer heart symptoms. When comparing alkaloid to alkaloid for commercial cold preparations, pseudoephedrine is less risky than ephedrine. Sometimes extracting only the active ingredient changes the results.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 181 by Phat, posted 08-29-2007 8:28 AM | | Phat has not replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
|
|
Message 184 of 304 (418607)
08-29-2007 8:57 AM
|
Reply to: Message 178 by nator
08-28-2007 6:26 PM
|
|
Re: Poor Poor Pitiful Me
quote:
I believe you have been exposed to all you need to have a fully-functioning bullshit detector. However, I think you choose to not use it when it comes to Naturopathy.
But a gradate of Harvard School of Medicine doesn't? Wow, you're expecting an awful lot from poor little ole me. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 178 by nator, posted 08-28-2007 6:26 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 190 by nator, posted 08-29-2007 6:51 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
A truly untested treatment no, but to me a truly untested treatment means it has never been used on humans. That is a truly bizarre definition of "untested". By that definition, blood letting is an appropriate treatment for fever. Here are the 5 (count em, five!) papers the NIH could track down for naturopathic "treatments".
NIH writes:
* CAM approaches, including naturopathic treatments, for women with temporomandibular disorder, a condition in which the joints connecting the skull to the lower jaw become inflamed * A naturopathic dietary approach as a complementary treatment for type 2 diabetes * The mushroom Trametes versicolor, for its effects as a complementary immune therapy in women with breast cancer * The costs and effects of naturopathic care, compared with conventional care, for low-back pain * Herbal and dietary approaches for menopausal symptoms. Of these five, two (the mushrooms and the herbs) are just research into the efficacy of the active ingredient of a "treatment". Once efficacy is established, Big Pharma will kick into gear and crank out a pill. The other three involve research into the relationship between diet and disease. Research in this area has been going on for decades. "Dietary approaches" are not the exclusive province of naturopathy. There are over 2,000 papers on pubmed! 900,000 on scholar.google!
purple writes: 1. Promote the healing power of nature. 2. First do no harm. Naturopathic practitioners choose therapies with the intent to keep harmful side effects to a minimum and not suppress symptoms. 3. Treat the whole person. Practitioners believe a person's health is affected by many factors, such as physical, mental, emotional, genetic, environmental, and social ones. Practitioners consider all these factors when choosing therapies and tailor treatment to each patient. 4. Treat the cause. Practitioners seek to identify and treat the causes of a disease or condition, rather than its symptoms. They believe that symptoms are signs that the body is trying to fight disease, adapt to it, or recover from it. 5. Prevention is the best cure. Practitioners teach ways of living that they consider most healthy and most likely to prevent illness. 6. The physician is a teacher. Practitioners consider it important to educate their patients in taking responsibility for their own health. This is the NIH definition of naturopathy. NOT the naturopathy definition of naturopathy. From the AANP:
Naturopathy places priority upon these conditions as the bases for ill health: (1) lowered vitality; (2) abnormal composition of blood and lymph; (3) maladjustment of muscles, ligaments, bones, and neurotropic disturbances; (4) accumulation of waste matter and poison in the system; (5) germs, bacteria, and parasites which invade the body and flourish because of toxic states which may provide optimum conditions for their flourishing; and (6) consideration of hereditary influences, and (7) psychological disturbances. Typical pseudo science babble.
naturowatch.org writes: Most naturopaths allege that virtually all diseases are within their scope. The most comprehensive naturopathic publications illustrating this belief are two editions of A Textbook of Natural Medicine ... and the Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine ... Both books recommend questionable dietary measures, vitamins, minerals, and/or herbs for more than 70 health problems ranging from acne to AIDS. For many of these conditions, daily administration of ten or more products is recommended -- some in dosages high enough to cause toxicity. Even the "textbooks" are filled with dangerous pseudo scientific babble. Furthermore, there's this:
NIH writes: A number of beliefs and practices in naturopathy do not follow the scientific approach of conventional medicine. Do not follow the scientific approach. Like this:
"The greatest promise of St. John's wort, however, may be in the treatment of AIDS." Pizzorno JE and Murray MT (eds.). Textbook of Natural Medicine, Churchill Livingstone, Edinburgh, 1999. p. 803 "Hair tests should be performed upon diagnosis to determine if the patient is lacking any vital minerals or vitamins." Treatise on Alzheimer's disease from the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine "Some doctors recommend taking baths with a cup or so of 3% hydrogen peroxide in the water to bring extra oxygen to the entire surface of the skin, thus making the lungs somewhat less oxygen hungry. This method can be performed preventively. Another technique for an acute attack is to drink some hot water with the juice of one clove of garlic." Emily Kane, a senior editor of the Journal of Naturopathic Medicine, the "official publication of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians." It sounds to me like the NIH is trying to wrangle to woomeisters into some kind of reasonable corral. I don't blame them. There has been far too much injury and death at the hands of "naturopaths".
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: But Thats Not Natural
Sometimes extracting only the active ingredient changes the results. That is what naturopaths would have you believe, isn't it?
"If there is any problem with herbal medicines it is that unless one knows how to prescribe them, they may not be effective. Herbal medications should be prescribed based on the symptoms that the person presents rather than for the name of the disease. Herbal medications are much more effective at relieving the patients symptoms when prescribed in this manner. When prescribed the medicines act with the body's own innate healing mechanism to restore balance and ultimately allows healing to occur. What's nice about plant or herbal medicines is that because they are derived from the whole plant they are considerably less toxic to the body. The plant medicine has evolved to work in harmony with the normal body processes rather than taking over its function as many drug therapies do. Because of this herbal medicines may be taken for longer periods of time without the side effects so often experienced with drugs." [Thomas Kruzel, N.D. Multiple Sclerosis and Alternative Medicine] The author is listed as "an Associate Professor of Medicine at National College of Naturopathic Medicine where he teaches Clinical Urology, Geriatric Medicine and Clinical Pathology." How would you support your contention that "the whole herb" is more effective than its active ingredient?
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: But Thats Not Natural
quote:
How would you support your contention that "the whole herb" is more effective than its active ingredient?
That's not what I wrote in Message 183 or what you quoted me as saying.
PD writes: Sometimes extracting only the active ingredient changes the results. Phat's article on ma hung in Message 181 gave examples, which is what I quoted. Do you have evidence that what they stated is incorrect?
|
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2671 days) Posts: 1909 From: MO Joined: 06-06-2007
|
Re: But Thats Not Natural
What is the difference between asserting that "extracting" the active ingredient changes its effect and insisting the the "whole herb" is more effective?
Do you have evidence that what they stated is incorrect? nator has already addressed that issue (aspirin/salicylic acid). Should you need more examples I would be more than happy to provide them. Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Testing Testing
quote:
I'm probably more an advocate of complementary medicine, than alternative. IOW, using naturopathy together with conventional medicine, not in place of.
Look, what you are still advocating is putting Naturopathy, which is based in vitalistic mysticism and not subjected to any testing for efficacy and safety on the same level, or even in the same ballpark, as modern, science-based medicine. So far, you haven't given any justification for why. I know that there are no laws to prevent pseudoscience and quackery in "natural healing" methods, for the most part, but what I am interested in exploring is how you can embrace such unscientific concepts and yet claim that you haven't abandoned science, evidence, and reason.
Are you saying that untested treatments have their place alongside tested treatments in healthcare? quote:
A truly untested treatment no, but to me a truly untested treatment means it has never been used on humans.
That is such a loose definition of "testing" that it is meaningless. Clearly, in the context of this and all the other discussions on this subject that I've been involved with here at EvC, the kind of "testing" we have always been talking about is controlled scientific tests, preferably of the double blind variety. To answer the question as if you aren't fully aware that this is what we've meant all along makes you look avoidant and weasely. So, I repeat, do you believe that therapies and treatments which have not undergone rigorous scientific study to determine their efficacy and safety "have their place" alongside those science-based treatments and therapies which have undergone such testing?
And do you agree that Naturopathy's basis is in a "unifying life force" and the mystical idea of vitalism? quote:
No. It focuses on treating the whole person with natural means such as diet, exercise, vitamins and herbal products.
I did a google search on "Naturopathy + vital", and here's some quotes from Naturopathy websites, all from the first page of hits:
The vital force is the store house of your physician strength, your vigour, your ebullience and your verve. Its ebb and flow determines the state headache malfunctioning bowels are all indications of diminished vital force. From another Naturopath's website, called " Vital Force Naturopathy":
Homeopathy utilizes dilute plant, animal, or mineral remedies to stimulate the Vital Force... which is the inherent self healing ability that acts to restore balance in the body. The homeopathic remedy chosen is unique to each individual patient's presentation. It must take into account the totality of the patient, including the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual aspects of the imbalance. Dr. Andrea Hornyak, ND's website states:
She enjoys being part of the healing process by providing support and encouragement in order to stimulate and clear blockages of the vital force. And, to top it all off, yet another Naturopath's webite lists these whoppers on their site:
The academic training in medical sciences of naturopathic and conventional physicians is similar. Hardly. and
Is naturopathic medicine scientific? Yes. Naturopathic medicine has its own unique body of knowledge, evolved and refined for centuries. It also incorporates scientific advances from medical disciplines throughout the world. Many of the individual therapies of naturopathic medical practice have been scientifically validated, especially in the areas of clinical nutrition, botanical medicine, homeopathy, immunology and hydrotherapy. The trend is that those naturopathic methods which are tested are validated. Homeopathy has NOT been scientifically validated, and neither has hydrotherapy for what Naturopaths believe it works for, like curing cancer and other ailments. Most herbs haven't been verified, either. From your own sources:
A number of beliefs and practices in naturopathy do not follow the scientific approach of conventional medicine. Also from the government website was the page on how to spot quackery. Please note the bolded portion:
Promise a quick or painless cure, Claim to be made from a special, secret, or ancient formula ” often only available by mail or from one sponsor, Use testimonials or undocumented case histories from satisfied patients, Claim to be effective for a wide range of ailments, Claim to cure a disease (such as arthritis or cancer) that is not yet understood by medical science, Offer an additional “free” gift or a larger amount of the product as a “special promotion,” or Require advance payment and claim limited availability of the product. Lastly, are you actually claiming that "biological homeostaisis" is what Naturopaths really mean when they say "balance"? Can you provide a link to a Naturopathic source that makes clear that this is what they mean? Edited by nator, : No reason given.
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: Poor Poor Pitiful Me
I believe you have been exposed to all you need to have a fully-functioning bullshit detector. However, I think you choose to not use it when it comes to Naturopathy. quote:
But a gradate of Harvard School of Medicine doesn't?
Sure, he's also been exposed to all he needs. He doesn't choose to use his bullshit detector either, just like you.
quote:
Wow, you're expecting an awful lot from poor little ole me.
What you are doing here is a sort of backhanded Argument from Authority. You are saying that you shouldn't be expected to use critical thinking skills when evaluating the claims of Naturopathy just because an MD doesn't use them either. Sorry, fallacies don't get you off the hook. You know better. I know you do.
|
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: 08-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 191 of 304 (418705)
08-29-2007 10:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 177 by nator
08-28-2007 6:16 PM
|
|
How to Sell your Own Woo Medicine (and Stay Out of Jail)
nator: Why, then, are ND's allowed to prescribe any treatment or theraputic substance which hasn't been rigorously tested and shown to be safe and effective? They can do it because, legally speaking, they are not prescribing medicines. They are recommending diet supplements. They enjoy the same innocent-until-proven-guilty legal standing as your auntie recommending a bowl of chicken soup when you have a cold. The fine print on the label on any 'nature med' explicitly denies that the contents are medicine. The labels say straight out that the contents have not been shown through scientific means to have any curative effects for any disease. The companies aren't committing fraud because the companies make no claim. The people who believe in the stuff ignore the disclaimers on the label. They rely on magazines, paperbacks, web sites and word-of-mouth reports (like some of the material quoted on this thread) for all their information about what the stuff 'really' does. The companies who sell it are (ahem) not legally responsible for the rumours that go around. People who buy the stuff are quick to observe, too, that the absence of any research supporting the effectiveness of the 'natural' stuff means the (apparent) absence of side effects as well. If you show them that the label of their 'nature med' says flat out that the stuff isn't medicine, they will happily ask you to read the fine print on any prescription meds in your cabinet. Inevitably a document has been placed in the box of any prescription med describing the undesirable things some individuals had to deal with when research was conducted. It gives you the statistics. The 'nature med' believers don't take much note of the benefits of research, accountability, and disclosure. What they see is 'My medicine has no known side effects. But look what that poison does to you!' ____ Edited by Archer Opterix, : brev.
Archer All species are transitional.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 177 by nator, posted 08-28-2007 6:16 PM | | nator has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 193 by nator, posted 08-30-2007 8:35 AM | | Archer Opteryx has replied |
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
Re: But Thats Not Natural
quote:
What is the difference between asserting that "extracting" the active ingredient changes its effect and insisting the the "whole herb" is more effective?
What assertion are you talking about? Read the Ma Hung article. I simply said, and you haven't shown me otherwise yet, that sometimes extracting only the active ingredient changes the results. The article gave examples of that. The difference is that my statement makes no claim that the different results are more or less effective, just different.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 188 by molbiogirl, posted 08-29-2007 6:06 PM | | molbiogirl has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 218 by Modulous, posted 08-31-2007 5:46 PM | | purpledawn has replied |
|
nator
Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: 12-09-2001
|
Re: How to Sell your Own Woo Medicine (and Stay Out of Jail)
Absolutely! I am well aware of all you've said and agree completely. My reason for asking that question of PD was to get at the root of her contention that "any treatment or theraputic substance which hasn't been rigorously tested and shown to be safe and effective" "has its place" alongside those that have.
|
purpledawn
Member (Idle past 3487 days) Posts: 4453 From: Indiana Joined: 04-25-2004
|
quote:
That is a truly bizarre definition of "untested". By that definition, blood letting is an appropriate treatment for fever.
How do you figure that? To the best of my limited knowledge, I thought bloodletting has been tested and found to be ineffective for most diseases. But bloodletting does still have its uses.
Bloodletting still has its place in the treatment of a few diseases, including hemochromatosis and polycythemia; it is practiced by specifically trained practitioners in hospitals, using modern techniques. But it was used until it was found to be ineffective.
quote:
This is the NIH definition of naturopathy.
Actually it is the NCCAM definition.
National Center for Complementary and Alternative MedicineNational Institutes of Health, The Nation's Research AgencyU.S. Department of Health & Human Services This is from my NDs pamphlet
The primary goal of Naturopathic treatment is to address the cause of illness, and not merely the symptoms. The patient is seen as a whole person and individualized treatment plans are based on the physical, mental and emotional needs of each patient. Naturopathy is based on the belief that the body is self-healing and will repair itself to recover from illness if given a healthy environment. A major focus is placed on wellness and disease prevention. Naturopathic doctors emphasize food and nutrition, vitamins and minerals, herbs and similar substances and some forms of physical medicine in their clinical approach. Naturopathic doctors strive to create an environment where balance can be restored. They focus on providing each individual with the tools they need to take an active role in their own health care and wellness. Treatment plans are individualized and safe and should not interfere with any current conventional care you may be receiving. Through individualized patient care and public education, the Naturopathic Doctor's primary purpose is: to prevent disease, support and encourage the body's natural healing process, promote health, optimize wellbeing. Remember you pointed out in Message 141 that naturopaths are independent practitioners. From your favorite site naturowatch.org
I recognize that there are probably large variations in philosophy and medical education among naturopathic practitioners. Some may practice more prudently than others and may use conventional medical treatments more frequently and work more closely with conventional medical practitioners. But we should make public policy decisions based on the standards of practice that are being taught, not on our opinions about individual practitioners. Judging by the standards of practice presented in the Textbook, it seems clear that the risks to many sick patients seeking care from the average naturopathic practitioner would far outweigh any possible benefits. If you'd paid any attention to what I've written, you would understand that I agree with the statement: But we should make public policy decisions based on the standards of practice that are being taught, not on our opinions about individual practitioners. Even Dr. Relman recognizes it is inaccurate to say that all NDs are "bad".
quote:
"Dietary approaches" are not the exclusive province of naturopathy.
I haven't claimed that it was. What is your point?
|
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: 08-16-2006
|
|
|
Message 195 of 304 (418779)
08-30-2007 9:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 193 by nator
08-30-2007 8:35 AM
|
|
Re: How to Sell your Own Woo Medicine (and Stay Out of Jail)
Absolutely! I am well aware of all you've said and agree completely. I know you do, 'Nator, and understand your reasons for asking PD the question. I offered my 'answer' as collaboration, really, for the benefit of our lurkers. The observations come from sad experience. I know individuals who ignored excellent medical advice from exceptionally qualified doctors because of claims they saw for woo 'alternatives' in popular magazines. Just another aside: I'm not sure where the word came in but for me the word 'holistic' is not the most helpful term to describe this phenomenon. In the absence of a precise definition of the word I would likely say I favour 'holistic health care' if asked. That's because for me the term refers to a wellness philosophy that emphasizes getting regular check-ups and maintaining overall fitness in addition to having specialists attack specific health issues that arise. This approach has nothing to do with supporting quack meds. (The peddlers of quack meds love to spout the philosophy, though.) How practical the approach is for any individual has much to do, though, with the availability and terms of health insurance in the society. ___ Edited by Archer Opterix, : html.
Archer All species are transitional.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 193 by nator, posted 08-30-2007 8:35 AM | | nator has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2