|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Holistic Doctors, and medicine | |||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I simply said, and you haven't shown me otherwise yet, that sometimes extracting only the active ingredient changes the results. If there is more than one active ingredient, and you only extract one of them, you are bound to get results other than intended. The lesson here is to extract all the active ingredients and reject the non-active or detrimental ones.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Could you show that they are identical please? If you find it in a natural source, or make it in a lab, vitamin A looks like this. Are you suggesting there might exist more than one way to make a Vitamin A molecule?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Yes, let's put our faith in the clinical trials that say this drug is largely effective and harmless. My doctor certainly thought so. He wasn't the only doctor to think this either. That drug ended up nearly destroying my life. The question remains, was the drug largely effective and harmless? A case study of one is useless. If you were the only person negatively affected and 2 billion peoples lives were saved...I'd say it was largely effective and harmless.
It is a year and a half since I stopped taking it and I am still experiencing many of the symptoms I had initially upon discontinuation, though with the help of my ND and her diet and supplement regime, they are gradually lessening. If other people were also affected, did they do better or worse than you in alleviating symptoms if they didn't visit an ND?
. They go to her to help fix the damage that allopathic medicine wrought on them. The question is: Does she help fix the damage allopathic medicine has wrought on them more than say, nothing or consulting a doctor and following their advice?
My own GP doesn't believe me when I tell him about my symptoms because "this cannot be." Then your GP is an ass. My GP believes me when I tell him about things.
I asked if anyone knows how allopathic medicine cures anything, apart from with antibiotics. It depends how you define allopathic. If you mean it to mean it to mean "Conventional Medicine" then very much yes. For instance, removing an appendix which has inflamed. It might reduce swelling using anti-inflammatories to prevent pressure on a certain organ which is causing symptoms. Whether or not actual allopathy cures things though is irrelevant - conventional medicine certainly does.
Naturopathy believes that the body can usually heal itself, given the right materials. Whereas conventional medicine shows evidence that this is trivially true.
A poor environment, toxins outside and inside the body, and poor nutrition can all be catalysts for disease Yes, obviously. Conventional medicine does this too. I was diagnosed as very probably being allergic to alcohol and was advised to drink only in moderation (ie., don't get drunk). By a medical doctor, no less (in fact several of them).
Allopathic medicine overwhelmingly treats the symptoms rather than their causes. Case in point, various kinds of mental illness. Usually you get a drug for these from your doc. No one should be pretending that these drugs actually cure anything. You are quite right - many drugs used for mental health problems don't cure mental health problems and nobody pretends they do. They do, however, help restore normal brain chemistry so the person is able to function. If the problem is psychological in nature, these drugs will allow the person to function well enough to work through the psychological problems with psychologist or counsellor. There are mental health problems that can be cured, and they are.
Naturopathy sees mental illness as a symptom of an underlying problem. As does conventional medicine. That underlying problem might be physical or psychological. Both can be treated, and even cured.
I have first-hand experience of seeing quite a number of people come off psychotropic drugs, and stay off them for years, using naturopathic methods. Sometimes their own docs had them drugged up on 10 or more meds at a time initially. That was their idea of "treatment." Indeed. And no doubt some people can get off drugs, not consult a naturopath, and be fine. Which is more effective? Some people can get off active drugs, take a placebo and remain fine. What's more effective a real naturopathic remedy, or a placebo in these cases? I've never heard of a doctor prescribing ten types of meds as initial treatment for a mental illness so it must be pretty severe. I know people with very bad mental illnesses and they don't need that many medications. Of course, it could be that the doctor is a corrupt bastard. That's a problem with a private system though, not with the medicine - surely?
It is up to you whether you'd like to learn more about this, or whether you dismiss it as meaningless anecdotal evidence. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones will not have to suffer severe illness before you consider other possibilities outside of conventional medicine. My loved ones have suffered severe illnesses. And doctors have made them better, and guided them through any necessary lifestyle changes they might need to make. I hope if the disease is severe you wouldn't run to a naturopath, or advise others to do likewise.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Well yes, but this isn't the case with psychotropic drugs. What happened to me isn't an oddity. So the question remains, was the drug largely effective and harmless? Do you have the figures on it, at all?
Several studies, including the National Institutes of Health-funded STAR*D trial (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression), have shown complete remission rates as low as 7%. Most studies show that antidepressants have only a marginal efficacy above placebo. And it's easy to manipulate scientific studies when the company conducting them has an interest in getting a certain result. Yes, one can manipulate scientific studies. Let's talk about STAR*D. They did four levels of treatment, and almost 70% of patients that continued on to all four levels became symptom-free. It concluded that different treatment strategies worked for different people, and that more research should be carried out.
quote: So, one drug might have a remission of 7% for some people. The study shows that the correct course of action is move to 'the next step' and that we should do research to help ensure we get the right people one right treatment as soon as possible. I'd agree with all of that, and it certainly doesn't seem to support your overall position that conventional treatment is ineffective.
Also, few people report side effects for a variety of reasons. I can dig around for a source for this if you want but I know I've read about it several times. Sexual side effects themselves were at first said to be rare on ADs, but I've seen estimates from more recent articles that put their occurrence as high as 80%. And I know people who have reported likewise to me. And I asked them which they preferred, no libido and no depression or libido and depression. Turns out they prefer the former. As would I.
That's an impossible question. Only because the naturopathy industry doesn't want to pay the money to do the study to find out of the job that pays their bills is actually worth it to the people who are getting treated. We agree that conflicts of interest are not good, I assume you agree likewise with the naturos as well as the pharmas?
All I am able to give is anecdotal evidence. Exactly. Yet you are able to get hard facts on remission rates and effectiveness of allopathic medicine...
You mentioned that conventional medicine can "cure" by removing an inflamed appendix. I did say in one of my posts here that modern medicine can perform some amazing feats of surgery. I'd go to the hospital if I had a broken leg. And some drugs can be life-saving. Maybe I should clarify; What do MEDICATIONS, apart from antibiotics, cure? Well, there are anti-viral medications that cure. Anti-cancerous medications that cure. Anti-inflammatory medications that give the body a break so it cure itself (indirect cure). Adrenalin can cure you in a situation you would otherwise die in. Anti-depression medication can cure, but psychological help is also recommended along with it. I had a massive amount of Amylase in my blood once, I was digesting myself alive. They pumped evil medication into me and I was good within a few hours (though my body was knackered for several weeks afterwards).
You've been listening to the media and the brainwashed GPs. No psychotropic med "restores" normal brain function. And you've been listening to naturopaths. Hurrah. Seriously though, since we don't know for sure the exact details behind depression we can't know for sure. However, serotonin is linked to depression - and many anti-depressants suppress serotonin reuptake. This might be upsetting the balance, or it might be that the suppression isn't happening as it should. Either way, the point I made still stands - they get you with it enough to undergo other treatments such as psychological if that is the root cause. If you are depressed its hard enough to get to the GP, let alone seek councelling.
Also, I know plenty of people who never functioned "well enough" to talk to a counsellor (if one is even offered; I can't talk to one on the NHS here). One of the people I know who successfully sued Glaxo tried to kill herself on Paxil, and tried to kill her husband with a knife. She didn't have a history of psychosis before she took the drug, and has not had any such episode since. Right - and I know dozens of people who have functioned well enough afterwards.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Several studies, including the National Institutes of Health-funded STAR*D trial (Sequenced Treatment Alternatives to Relieve Depression), have shown complete remission rates as low as 7%. Most studies show that antidepressants have only a marginal efficacy above placebo. And it's easy to manipulate scientific studies when the company conducting them has an interest in getting a certain result. Let's talk about STAR*D. They did four levels of treatment, and almost 70% of patients that continued on to all four levels became symptom-free. It concluded that different treatment strategies worked for different people, and that more research should be carried out.
quote: So, one drug might have a remission of 7% - I didn't see that particular stat, unfortunately. The study shows that the correct course of action is move to 'the next step' and that we should do research to help ensure we get the right people one right treatment as soon as possible. I'd agree with all of that, and it certainly doesn't seem to support your overall position that conventional treatment is ineffective.
Also, few people report side effects for a variety of reasons. I can dig around for a source for this if you want but I know I've read about it several times. Sexual side effects themselves were at first said to be rare on ADs, but I've seen estimates from more recent articles that put their occurrence as high as 80%. And I know people who have reported likewise to me. And I asked them which they preferred, no libido and no depression or libido and depression. Turns out they prefer the former. As would I.
That's an impossible question. Only because the naturopathy industry doesn't want to pay the money to do the study to find out of the job that pays their bills is actually worth it to the people who are getting treated. We agree that conflicts of interest are not good, I assume you agree likewise with the naturos as well as the pharmas?
All I am able to give is anecdotal evidence. Exactly. Yet you are able to get scientific evidence on remission rates and effectiveness of allopathic medicine...
You mentioned that conventional medicine can "cure" by removing an inflamed appendix. I did say in one of my posts here that modern medicine can perform some amazing feats of surgery. I'd go to the hospital if I had a broken leg. And some drugs can be life-saving. Maybe I should clarify; What do MEDICATIONS, apart from antibiotics, cure? Well, there are anti-viral medications that cure. Anti-cancerous medications that cure. Anti-inflammatory medications that give the body a break so it cure itself (indirect cure). Adrenalin can cure you in a situation you would otherwise die in. Anti-depression medication can cure, but psychological help is also recommended along with it. I had a massive amount of Amylase in my blood once, I was digesting myself alive (notably my own pancreas). They pumped evil medication into me and I was good within a few hours (though my body was knackered for several weeks afterwards).
You've been listening to the media and the brainwashed GPs. No psychotropic med "restores" normal brain function. And you've been listening to naturopaths. Hurrah. Seriously though, since we don't know for sure the exact details behind every depression we can't know for sure. However, serotonin is linked to depression - and many anti-depressants suppress serotonin reuptake. This might be upsetting the balance, or it might be that the suppression isn't happening as it should. Either way, the point I made still stands - they get you with it enough to undergo other treatments such as psychological if that is the root cause. If you are depressed its hard enough to get to the GP, let alone seek councelling.
Also, I know plenty of people who never functioned "well enough" to talk to a counsellor (if one is even offered; I can't talk to one on the NHS here). One of the people I know who successfully sued Glaxo tried to kill herself on Paxil, and tried to kill her husband with a knife. She didn't have a history of psychosis before she took the drug, and has not had any such episode since. Right - and I know dozens of people who have functioned well enough afterwards. I'm curious - what about none psychological medicines?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Though this story is also anecdotal it was convincing enough for me as a non-medical professional to be extremely skeptical when deciding to self medicate. I am much more comfortable knowing that real studies have been conducted by scientists when I am recommended a medication from my doctor. And even if the manufacturers skewed their results in a conscious or unconscious way - research doesn't generally end there because there is usually a governmental research team between the pharmas and the public, and as far as I am aware, a localised trial with the public before it goes out 'at large'. This can take years. I think everyone here would be happy to agree that the system isn't perfect, and the possibility of corruption, incompetence or just wishful thinking can mean bad drugs get out there from time to time. However, given the choice of the two systems I'd pick pharma's system to the naturo's rigid anecdotalism, with its deeply entrenched confirmation bias possibility.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I can't find documentation that Lucy Pauling died of pernicious anemia. The claim isn't that she died from it, but that she suffered with it until her death. Documentation:
quote: Though the name discrepancy looks unusual I think her full name was Lucy Isabelle Pauling.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024