MOH Forum: New doctors to get quack training

New doctors to get quack training

Posted By:
Captain Al
in Vancouver Island, Canada
Jun 05, 2005

Junk science is getting out of control. Now some medical schools will require students to take courses in herbal therapy, accupunture, meditation and other forms of alternative "treatment". How do these people keep their jobs?
<a href="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050605/ap_on_he_me/apn_alternative_medicine" title="Quack medical training">Quack medical training</a>

Category: Health, Science; Replies: 90

Comments

Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 \| 04:20 PM Because alternative medicine saves the insurance companies money.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Sun Jun 05, 2005 \| 07:44 PM One person who can't believe this is happening is Stephen Barrett, MD who runs the website <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/">Quackwatch.org</a> He claims a number of the people responsible for this initiative have a financial interest in alternative treatment and that he as well as other skeptical physicians were excluded from the decision making process. It seems the alternative treatment industry is positioning themselves to scam the public by getting recognition from conventional health care agencies. Barrett also says the health care industry are selling out to the alternatives to get a share of the funding that will result. Here are two essays on the subject from Barrett's website. <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/07PoliticalActivities/iomreport.html">Irresponsible "CAM" report</a> <a href="http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/IOM/camcommittee.html">Some notes on the Institute of Medicine's panel on "Complementary and Alternative Medicine"</a>
Nettie in Perth, Western Australia Member	Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 \| 06:45 AM Hey, you can get ancillary cover on your health insurance here to cover acupuncture, massage and all sorts of things so I'm not surprised it's finding it's way into traditional medicine. I mean, doctors have to make a buck somehow right? 😊
Terry Austin	Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 \| 12:17 PM <EM>Because alternative medicine saves the insurance companies money.</EM> Indeed. Not providing any real medical care, so that your clients die, is far cheaper for insurance companies that actually providing the services contracted for. No, I'm not cynical. Why do you ask?
Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA Member	Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 \| 07:43 PM The insurance industry is *EVIL!!!*
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 \| 08:15 PM Sounds good to me Doctors might actually start finding out how to cure people instead of the current.. 'lets keep people sick because it keeps us in employment' policy Have you not noticed that virtually every perscription medicine has about a dozen side effects for which you might have to take other medicines Have you not noticed that the medicine they do offer only cure symtoms rather than the ailment. I'd go to a real doctor, a herbalist long before I'd visit any of those other quacks thank you.
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Mon Jun 06, 2005 \| 11:59 PM Sharruma, was it alternative medicine that cured polio? Can alternative medicine keep HIV from turning into AIDS? Herbology (it's a word now, damnit!) is an important part of the pharmaceutical industry, but chewing a leaf isn't necessarily any more healthy than taking a pill; in fact it's probably better to isolate the active ingredient in that leaf and synthesize it, so you don't have to worry about what else is in the leaf.
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 \| 12:01 AM I agree that there's a lot of things wrong with medicine now, and if it were up to me there would be no 'pharmacuetical industry,' but it's better to trust them than the quacks.
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 \| 02:03 AM I agree CP it is better to take the active part of a leaf and use that Of course you can't claim it actually does anything becasue then the FDA would want there share Did you know they tried to make Vitamin C a drug at one point? Perhaps I am biased, I don't trust doctors
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 \| 07:45 AM CP, it seems you'd just rather drug people up than cure them! I'll admit that herbal cures & remedies aren't for everything...but I can take something that will relieve (not cure) my allergy symptoms that WON'T cause liver damage, or take something that will do the exact same that WILL cause liver damage. If I've got a choice I'd take the herbal remedy. Since neither one will cure me of being allergic to something, but each one will at least keep me from feeling heavy-headed, stuffed up, and itchy...I'm going to take the one that does less damage to my body. It's more difficult for the liver to do it's job on the synthetic pill than on the natural pill. Since I'm gonna need my liver for the rest of my life, I'd like to take it a little easy on it. I don't see where the problem is here. I'd rather a doctor know the full spectrum of things available...than just the stuff they learned regarding chemicals and pills. I keep a box of benedryl, but I also have alfalfa tablets & echinacea on hand too.
helen	Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 \| 10:48 AM Meagan, Sharruma: I understand that you don't want side effects when you take medication, and if you suspect that the pharmaceutical industry wants to make money I am sure you are right. But you mustn't forget that the body is very complex; because it uses similar biochemical pathways to carry out several tasks, it is almost impossible for a drug that works in one part of the body not to have effects elsewhere (you will have heard a lot about COX-2 inhibitors recently, for example). This means that, if it works on your illness, it will almost certainly have an effect elsewhere in your body, too. And that applies to herbal drugs as well as synthetic ones. Furthermore, herbs contain many active substances, several of which might have unwanted effects (for example, destroying your liver) with no positive effects, so clearly it's better to take a synthetic version of the active substance you want, in a measured dose instead of the varying quantities present in plants. I'm afraid that if you expect medicines to work perfectly and without side effects, then you have been misled. And if you expect herbal medicines to work without side effects, then I can guess who has misled you - why should you believe the 'natural medicines' industry cares less about profits than the pharmaceutical industry? They're just less well regulated and don't have to tell you about side effects. To sum up, if you've got a minor ailment and the drug has major side effects, then don't take the drug; if you've got a major illness, like cancer, then for your own sake take the drug and put up with the side effects, because anyone who tells you it can be cured any other way is either ignorant or scamming you.
helen	Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 \| 10:59 AM Oops, sorry for misspelling your name, Maegan. And BTW I don't work in the pharmaceutical industry.
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 \| 11:12 AM I'm going to have to support helen and CP here. Drugs are drugs, it doesn't matter if they come in a pill or a piece of bark. Using medication is always a balancing act, and sometimes you need another medication to alleviate the affects of the first. But that's not restricted to just the pharmacuetical companies. And Maegan, how do you know that your herbal remedy doesn't cause liver damage? Have there been professional clinical studies to determine this or are you just taking their word for it, because we know that people never lie to make a buck, don't we?
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 \| 03:59 PM Helen: I've little doubt you're right to some extent that herb can cause side effects. Chapperel for example can make you very sick (its a poisonous plant) but the side effects caused by herbs are usually mild in comparisson to those a drug might give you. (they'd natural, what side effects do vitamins normally give you? Well anything can be bad if you take too much of it.) Have a look at something simple, Heartburn. Have a look at the drugs you can get for it and the side effects they cause. Look at how they work by forcing neutralizing your body acids and forcing your body into panic to produce more. (as for 'Destroying your liver' virtually every heartburn medicine advertised these days seems to have that as a side effect as well as many others) A much simpler less harmful cure for heartburn is a spoonful of vinegar. Being acid itself it doesn't send your body into panic. I'm not saying vinegar will cure it every time, but 95% of the time definately. Personally I never take anything else. Meagan: You're right of course, you should never cut off all possibilities. Though doctors and manufactured drugs should be a last resort it's always good to keep them in reserve in case the herbal remedies aren't working. Allow me to quote a few proverbs from the penguin Dictionary of proverbs - about doctors. One Doctor makes work for another The Doctor is often more to be feared than the disease Physicians kill more than they cure. A young physicians fattens the churchyard. If you have a physician for a friend tip your hat and send him to your enemy. Guess I'm not the only one that distrust's doctors 😉 Of course part of my distrust of the doctor may be that of all the people I've known that have gone to hospital, not one of them lived to talk about it afterwards.
Citizen Premier in spite of public outcry Member	Posted: Tue Jun 07, 2005 \| 08:26 PM Sharruma, I sincerely hope you wouldn't let penguins take out your inflammed appendix.
Smerk in to mischief Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 12:59 AM I'm afraid I'm jumping on the herbal/natural rememdy band wagon myself. Probably a result of when a doctor trying to class me an asthmatic when all I was suffering from was a cold. Not to mention that I find that herbal and natural remedies often work a lot better with me than any of the synthetic drugs available.
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 02:25 AM CP If I take the right herbs my appendix won't get inflamed in the first place. (it hasn't so far.)
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 05:26 AM helen, I wasn't suggesting that the herbal remedy world isn't looking for money. I was simply suggesting that running to a doctor at the first twitch isn't really the answer. My mother has worked in hospitals for the last 13 years or so, I've been around a lot of doctors. My feeling is that PATIENTS think that a pill or injection should cure them. So instead of actually listening to their doctors, they're just asking for meds. The doctors have gotten very used to this cycle...and just start prescribing meds when the patient walks in the door. I have nothing against doctors. I have been very happy with most of mine. Even my OB/GYN...(I say even him, b/c I had quite an issue with the hospital where I delivered, and people tend to blame their doctors for a bad hospital experience. He was fantastic. It was the hospital staff whose neck I wanted to ring.) When I had heartburn, I took Papaya extract. Worked like a charm. No extra chemicals in that to help it dissolve in my stomach. When I was queasy I chewed on ginger. It burned a little bit, but it worked. Again...no added synthetics in my system that I or my baby had to filter <i>out</i> of our systems. But when I have a headache? Excedrin. Night time sniffling, sneezing, coughing, achey head? Nyquil. When I had a respitory infection last winter, even my doctor tried out some lesser treatments, b/c he knows that I don't like to bombard my body with chemicals. We tried to let my immune system build up and take over. When it didn't work we went to a synthetic steroid. I'm not totally against pharmecutical companies, doctors, and hospitals. I'd just like for my doctor to know the difference between echinacea and goldenseal.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 09:38 AM I think some people are under the mistaken impression that some of these alternative treatments actually work. Does anybody here really think meditation, prayer or herbs can heal medical conditions? This is the real issue, not whether or not some exotic plant can relieve cold symptoms. If someone who goes through 8 or 10 years of medical training can't cure some ailment, what the hell makes you think a gypsy pharmacist can? I distrust doctors as much as the next person, maybe more so, but putting your health in the hands of quacks is insane. Most minor aches, pains and colds go away in a few days. Why do we need to see a doctor or herbalist(?) for every little thing? Be brave, take it like a man!
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 11:38 AM Are you suggesting herbal medicine doesn't work CP? That if I take vitamin C I'll still come down with Scurvy? Perhaps oil of cloves isn't a natural ananesthetic after all. (used by those with bad toothache) Perhaps Garlic won't help clean my blood. Magnesium isn't an aid for women at certain times of the month. And whats this about meditation and prayer are you trying to make me into some sort of religious fanatic? I think what you're saying is that you've lost the arguement and you're trying to claim I said things I didn't to make my argument weaker. CP, seriously I don't care enough about you whether you're into drugs or herbs or both. It doesn't matter to me. All that bothers me is when people who are ignorant of the facts call herbal medicine, quack medicine when the stuff works to a better and heathier extent than your drugs.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 12:04 PM I think Sharruma's comments were directed at me not Citizen Premier. Vitamin C is not a herb. It's part of a proper diet, something recommended by mainstream medical science. Oil of cloves may work for toothaches but I don't know since I've never tried it. I would think there are "medical drugs" that are stronger but if oil of cloves works good enough, go with it. What's so special about garlic? There is nothing healthy or magical in it that you can't get from many other foods that nature gives us. If I remember correctly, medical science tells us magnesium is a trace mineral that all humans require. Again, nothing herbal about it. If you had bothered to read the report that started this thread you would know that these same people who are trying to get herbal medicine training for doctors also think that meditation and prayer belong in the same category.
helen	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 01:01 PM Sorry in advance for the length of this post; I've tried to cut it... Maegan, it sounds as though we agree after all - I too think the problem is largely one of our (patients') excessive expectations. Of course medicine can't cure everything; no good doctor would claim it can. My worry is that this makes lots of people are susceptible to exaggerated claims made for untested remedies by scammers and the well-meaning ignorant. Generally, there seems to be a widespread belief that natural = good, and that chemicals = unnatural = bad. If herbs work (and plenty of them do) then that's because of one or more of the chemicals of which they are made. Those chemicals - drugs - will, of course, have side effects (see my earlier post), but since plants contain all sorts of chemicals besides the drug(s) you want, they may have further undesirable effects. In addition, different samples of a herb can contain different doses of the drug you want. This is why it's better to take the purified or synthesized version in a tablet. Obviously, for minor ailments where a cheap plant is available with few side effects, you might as well take it - I use ginger for seasickness myself, but I don't pay for some sort of expensive extract of ginger from a health-food shop when a couple of ginger biscuits or a piece of root will do the trick. Worse, you could quite possibly kill yourself with home-made foxglove tea for chronic heart failure - a prescription with the same active compound in a measured dose is much better! Sharruma, as you'll see above, I don't deny that (some) herbs work; but those that work can have severe side effects. To answer your other question, yes, you can kill yourself with vitamin A without having to swallow buckets of the stuff. If something is classified as a drug, that's so that the regulatory authorities can make sure it's manufactured and marketed safely. (Yes, I know there are commercial interests as well, fair point but not the only reason for the existence of doctors or licensing!) Vinegar for heartburn - this is interesting, I've not heard that one before. Do you know if anyone has tested it in several people? Have you tried timing your heartburn and seeing whether it goes faster with vinegar than without? You could be on to something useful, though your explanation isn't an explanation. We should test vinegar and, if it works, fine - then it's orthodox medicine. Garlic for 'cleaning the blood' is another matter. What do you mean by 'cleaning your blood'? How do you know your blood is dirty? What are the symptoms? If, on the other hand, you have high cholesterol and know that there is epidemiological or clinical evidence that garlic lowers it and reduces your risk of cardiovascular events, fine - say so.
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 05:41 PM I'm not a herbologist but you'r kidneys are there to clean the blood. Garlic help this process. When I suffered with acne as a teenager I was given garlic to help clean it up. This was before I grew my current suspicion of doctrs, and it was actually a doctor that recommended it. Apparently you can also use charcoal for bad breath, but I beleive too much charcoal has detrimental effects. Vitamin C as with all vitamins come from plants, citrus friuts etc. It's not created in a lab as are many drugs it's a natually occuring substance hence it fits in as part of herb lore. It also fits in because the FDA would love to get their hands on it so they can regulate it as they would all natural medicine and have already tried to do just that in the past. Yes Captain Al my comment were aimed at you. I guess I didn't check that bit properly. Nope, I didn't read the artical. I'm defending herb lore not what they said in the artical. Anything they said about prayer and meditation in the article I'd probably agree with you about, that sounds like quackery to me. Magnesium is a naturally occuring mineral, it appears in many plants and meats and chocolate too, it belongs with natural medicine. To clarify, natural medicine, as I understand it contains all naturally occurring elements of a mineral nature as well as natural plant extracts. If you want to know if something counts as a natural medicine or not, look at the diet suppliments in any supermarket. Considering how many they must sell, it makes sense that these things are doing something. (to clarify these things are called diet suppliments and will not have a list of what they do on them because the FDA would pounce on them the first chance they got. Any 'medicine' has to be officially approved by the FDA before it can be sold as such.) Oh one final comment helen, allow me to explain why vinegar works. You have dinner, you suffer from heartburn. Heartburn is not caused (in most cases) by too much acid, it's caused because your body hasn't produced enough acid to digest the food. An antacid pill will remove what acid there is, it makes your body panic, oh no, we have no acid, quick let's pump some out! Vinegar is acid, it help replenish the lack and so helps to cure the heartburn without sending your body into that panic. It's both better for you and cheaper. You don't need to take my word for it, next time you have indigestion, heartburn or acid reflex disease, try it. I say 95% of the time it'll work, I've never known it to fail but I'll keep that 5% in reserve just in case 😉
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 05:45 PM Oh I should point out that vinegar isn't considered orthodox medicine, because first it would cost millions for the FDA to run their normal checks and secondly the price of vinegar would shoot up as if became a drug Also of course, the indigestion business is big money in the US. If i walk into any supermarket I'll see at least one set of shelves dedicated to heartburn medicines. Imagine how much these companies would lose if the truth about vinegar was in the public domain.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 06:50 PM Sharruma says: "If you want to know if something counts as a natural medicine or not, look at the diet suppliments in any supermarket. Considering how many they must sell, it makes sense that these things are doing something. " Since when do sales figures count as proof of something working? Yeah, people would have to be really stupid to buy things that don't work! I suppose this means there really are such things as UFOs and alien abductions since so many people believe they are true. And I guess we must accept astrology and speaking to the dead as valid practices, considering how many books they sell about it. Heartburn is caused by acid in the stomach. How does taking another acid (vinegar)cure it? Should you not take something that is alkaline to counteract it? Isn't that why heartburn products are called "antacids"?
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 07:14 PM Read what I said again dude Heartburn is not caused by too much acid but by not enough acid.
Cranky Media Guy	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 07:20 PM Charybdis said: "And Maegan, how do you know that your herbal remedy doesn't cause liver damage? Have there been professional clinical studies to determine this or are you just taking their word for it, because we know that people never lie to make a buck, don't we?" Couldn't have said it better myself. Too many people seem to operate on the assumption that someone hawking a "natural" remedy is automatically telling the truth about their product. I also think that a lot of people confuse the pharmaceutical industry with science. I was married to a hospital pharmacy director for 11 years and I've even taken three drug company-paid for trips. Yeah, they throw around a LOT of money to get hospitals to stock their new products and doctors to prescribe them (which is kind of sleazy, I think). That does NOT mean, however, that everything they produce is automatically inferior to something which is allegedly "natural." Unfortunately, thanks in large part to Senator Orrin Hatch, a lot of what is on the market is NOT scientifically reviewed. All the manufacturer has to do it call it a "food supplement" instead of a drug and they can put it on the market without much, if any, governmental oversight. And don't even get me started on "homeopathic" stuff!
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 07:45 PM CMG makes some good points The dietry supplements aren't as well regulated so you do have to be careful what you buy. There are too many cases recently of one natural medicine actually being mixed with something else not so good for you. And I totally agree with homeopathic stuff, though this is because I don't know how or why it works rather than refuse to believe it might work at all. Oh, the reason you know your natural drug doesn't cause liver damage is because none of it's effects will be listed on the bottle and you'd have to look them up independantly from a source that makes no profit if a particular suppliment is bought or not. This will list all side affects, if any, too. (of course you still have to be careful that you are buying what the label claims it to be)
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 08:17 PM Sharruma, I did read what you said, dude! And I think you are wrong. Check your facts. Heartburn is caused by too much acid.
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Wed Jun 08, 2005 \| 08:30 PM All I can suggest is you try it. I can't prove it on paper you'll have to see for yourself. If I'm wrong you can still take your standard pill for it afterwards.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 \| 08:11 AM I can't try it. I've never had heartburn.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 \| 08:12 AM And I'm not saying it doesn't work. I just said it's caused by too much acid.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 \| 10:28 AM Heartburn: a burning discomfort behind the lower part of the sternum usually related to spasm of the lower end of the esophagus or of the upper part of the stomach. That's how Webster defines it... <a href="http://my.webmd.com/content/article/9/1815_50329.htm?z=1815_50327_6506_00_04">Web MD defines it like this.</a> Anywho...When I take ANYTHING for any symptoms or illness I am experiencing, I research it. If I HAVE something that I feel warrants a medication of some sort, I look into it... I'm not walking into the healthfood store willy nilly & picking up bottles and swallowing pills or powders. I don't take OTC drugs, or prescribed drugs that way, why would I take herbs that way?? I go to a few different sites to check out herbal & pharmecutical remedies, but I don't know the site names...I've got it saved on my favorites at home... So I check out some different sources, to see what I can use. Just like with prescription medication, I make sure the herbal medications are compatible with one another...
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 \| 12:40 PM I'll admit Heartburn can be caused by too much acid That's the five percent allowance I left. Most of the time it's not enough acid though which is why vinegar works so well (two to three minutes at most in my experience) Thats probably a good description Maegan, it tells you what heartburn is without making any potentially erroneous suggestions as to what causes it. Anyway Capt if you can't check it yourself I'm sure you know someone who can test it for you.
helen	Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 \| 04:19 PM Hi, if anyone's still reading this. Sharruma, your claim about vinegar is really two claims. The first one, the interesting one, is that vinegar can cure 95% of cases of heartburn. You've made this claim based on the observation that if you drink a little vinegar, your heartburn goes away, and you hypothesize that there's a causal connection. This makes me want to test it properly - I mean a double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT) - but I don't have the resources. Only when we've done that need we bother with your second claim, that heartburn is caused by too much acid. What's your reason for asserting this? You'd make a stronger argument by leaving it out; even if your first claim, based on observation, is true, your second claim doesn't necessarily follow. An example of an equally good, opposing hypothesis would be that a bit more acid triggers the stomach to stop producing acid. Moreover, your hypothesis is contradicted by existing scientific knowledge (evidence from pH-meter studies, etc.) I think you've done something similar with your claims about garlic. Yes, the kidneys clean the blood of waste products (but not, as far as I know, of cholesterol, which I think is what the scientists are interested in garlic for). Are you combining two ideas without evidence? Because I've never heard of garlic being used to 'help the kidneys', even in end-stage renal failure, where it'd come in handy for people whose blood really does need cleaning. (As always, I am ready to learn otherwise from anyone provided you can back claims up with good evidence from rigorous studies.) Acne, according to dermatologists at least, has nothing to do with 'dirty blood'. Again, this alone doesn't mean that garlic does not help acne (although I'm not aware that it does), just that you have combined an observation or belief about an effect with a postulated mechanism for which there seems to be no evidence. Homeopathy - this has been covered in such detail all over the web that I'll only say that (a) I had an open mind until I looked into it at the promping of a homeopath (the purpose of having an open mind being to close it firmly on something, as somebody - Bertrand Russell? - said) and (b) when I looked into it I found that not one of the many RCTs carried out on homeopathy have shown it to have any effect.
lizzy	Posted: Tue Jul 26, 2005 \| 11:06 PM Isn't it funny, how herbal medicines found a cure for both Aids and cancer via the use and manipulation of certain vitamins, and was quashed by the medical system? And then, they sent the poor person for months of tests, painful treatments, when the answer was there all along? And why then, are there natural medicine hospitals popping up all over the world if it doses not work? Hmmm..?
crankymediaguy	Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 \| 12:51 AM lizzy said: "Isn't it funny, how herbal medicines found a cure for both Aids and cancer via the use and manipulation of certain vitamins, and was quashed by the medical system? And then, they sent the poor person for months of tests, painful treatments, when the answer was there all along?" So, where would a person read the peer-reviewed studies that prove that "alternative" medicine has "cured" AIDS and cancer? Let's assume for a moment that your assertion is correct. Don't you think that the "medical system" as you call it would either buy up the companies that were making the herbal medicines that cured those deadly diseases and sell them themselves OR simply manufacture their own versions of them? You can't, after all, sell anything to the dead. "And why then, are there natural medicine hospitals popping up all over the world if it doses not work? Hmmm..?" Why are "payroll loan" places popping up all over when banks exist? The fact that some people fall for scams in no way proves that the "mainstream" way doesn't work at all. I think a lot of you proponents of "natural" or "herbal" or "alternative" whatever confuse the fact that mainstream medicine sometimes makes mistakes and can't cure everything with the notion that therefore it is completely disinterested in the health of the public. There is a tendency to confuse the SCIENCE of medicine with the BIG BUSINESS of medicine. I've mentioned before that I was married to a hospital pharmacy director for 11 years. I've seen what the business side looks like and it isn't always pretty. That, however, should not cause anyone to reject the real SCIENCE that goes into creating medicines. Lizzy, if you believe that there is an "alternative" treatment that is a sure-fire cure for cancer, please provide the proof of that claim. And just so you know, no, telling us that you know a guy who knows a guy who had cancer but it went away after he ate some tree bark does NOT constitute "proof." While REAL science has actually cured diseases that ravaged the human race for centuries, "alternative" medicine has yet to produce a single cure for anything. Sorry, but that's the fact.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 \| 12:24 PM I didn't think cancer could be cured. I thought most cancers were genetic. Just like you couldn't cure hair or eye color - you get what you get. I don't really understand cancer that well, though.
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 \| 04:30 PM Just because a disease is genetic doesn't mean that it can't be cured. While theoretically, if not practically, it is possible to define hair or eye color or other genetic traits before birth, cancer doesn't seem to be a genetic trait. Susceptibility to cancer seems to be genetic, but the causes of cancer itself are widespread. Genetic traits can't be ruled out, however. It's just that I don't think it's fully understood what exactly triggers cancers in the first place.
Sharruma in capable of finishing a coherent Member	Posted: Wed Jul 27, 2005 \| 06:42 PM Cranky One simple question - Do you eat? If so why? I eat because I beleive my body had requirements for certain nutrients that it finds in the food. If I didn't eat I'd starve to death. Yet the arguments I'm hearing from some people would suggest food does nothing for me. Why then is it so hard to believe that there might be something in various herbs that might also be needed by my body. Herbs that might help to cure me if I'm taken ill. A lot of illness is caused by an imbalance in the body that herbs can rectify. I'm not saying that herbs can cure everything, they won't fix a broken leg, though they can help and cannabis, for example, can be used as an anesthetic - oh and guess what it's a plant, if an illegal one And why is it illegal if it has no effect?
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Thu Jul 28, 2005 \| 09:39 PM Since herbs are plants they probably have nutritional value. But I doubt they have anything in them you can't get from other foods. They vast majority of humans survive without eating any herbs. If there are additional benefits to these herbal "medicines", it should be easy to verify by proper scientific testing. So far no one has.
Cranky Media Guy	Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 \| 03:07 AM Sharruma said: "Cranky One simple question - Do you eat? If so why?" Well, I eat because I don't want Ronald McDonald to collect unemployment. Seriously, I eat because my body will cease to function if I go without food for an extended period of time. "I eat because I beleive my body had requirements for certain nutrients that it finds in the food. If I didn't eat I'd starve to death. Yet the arguments I'm hearing from some people would suggest food does nothing for me." Who said anything about food not having any salutory effects on the human body? "Why then is it so hard to believe that there might be something in various herbs that might also be needed by my body. Herbs that might help to cure me if I'm taken ill." It doesn't make the slightest difference if something seems "hard to believe" or not. Things either work or they don't. The way we test things is NOT by asking people if they believe in them. We test them using double-blind processes. The efficacy of herbs can be tested that way just as virtually anything else can. Conduct proper tests on herbs, prove your conjecture and fair-minded people will be forced to accept the results of the testing. "A lot of illness is caused by an imbalance in the body that herbs can rectify." That's a pretty general statement. Which herbs? Which "imbalances?" "I'm not saying that herbs can cure everything, they won't fix a broken leg, though they can help and cannabis, for example, can be used as an anesthetic - oh and guess what it's a plant, if an illegal one And why is it illegal if it has no effect?" OK, for the record, although I grew up in New York City and I'm currently 53 years old, I have never been drunk or high in my life. It isn't a religious thing, I just don't think that intoxication is a good idea. Having said that, from what I've seen (and I've seen a LOT of people use a LOT of intoxicants), cannabis seems like it's far from the most dangerous drug a person could use recreationally. My understanding is that it is illegal because large companies with interests in alcohol wanted it to be. Am I recalling correctly that the Volstead Act has something to do with this, or am I confusing two different things? The fact that cannabis can be used as an anesthetic doesn't prove that plants in general are superior to other types of medicine. Poison ivy is a plant, yes? Rub some all over your body and tell me what it cures, OK? Would you accept the outcome as "proof" that plants are dangerous in general? I doubt it--and you'd be foolish to do so. Every plant or herb needs to be tested individually to determine what it can or cannot do. By the way, I don't think that cannabis is illegal because of its potential use as an anesthetic. Did you happen to see the reports this week that echinacea has NO effect on the common cold and that St. John's Wort does nothing to help with depression? That was determined by actual TESTING. By the way, I wouldn't base too many arguments on the actions of politicians if I were you. They'll let you down almost every time.
Accipiter Member	Posted: Fri Jul 29, 2005 \| 08:46 PM First, for the sake of simplicity, I'll refer to all these various traditional or homeopathic treatments and remedies as "herbal remedies", even if it's something like shark cartilage or vinegar. Next, there are two misconceptions that have to be clarified: 1: Herbal remedies are fakes. This is true in some cases, but not in others. Many herbal remedies do work, although a particular herbal remedy may not work as well as its manufactured counterpart does. Quite a few mainstream pharmaceuticals were originally herbal remedies (aspirin comes to mind, basically being a concentrated dose of the acetylsalicyclic acid that's found in willow bark). Pharmaceutical companies spend vast amounts of money and effort studying samples of various exotic plants, hoping to find the next great wonder-drug. Even herbal remedies that are already commonly known may work just as well as or better than manufactured drugs, but have simply not been studied yet (if a study can't accumulate enough funding in advance, the study often simply doesn't happen). Herbal remedies may also give the medications in a form that's easier to take or less concentrated, which can be important in some cases. However, this doesn't mean that all herbal remedies are potential wonder cures. 2: Because it's natural, it's good for you! Cashews that you buy in cans are not in their natural state. This is because if you ate a can of cashews that had just been harvested, you'd die very painfully. Most plants have developed a wide array of unpleasant surprises for anybody who nibbles on them. And even if the remedy does not harm you by being poisonous, it can be harmful by not being beneficial. If you believe that eating an ounce of dried sea-slug (a natural substance) will cure your cancer, then you might decide to rely on that and not go through chemotherapy (which is a very non-natural procedure). Unfortunately, since sea-slugs have no cancer fighting properties (that I'm aware of, at least), this means that you'd end up dying instead of possibly being cured by chemotherapy. Herbal remedies can be dangerous simply by taking the place of other treatments. Prescription drugs may also give you the same beneficial chemicals found in a herbal remedy, but in a stronger, easier to use form that also leaves out some of the various nasty extra chemicals that the natural product contains. Anyway, I don't see it as a problem that doctors are learning the more common herbal remedies. . .just as long as they are still being taught "scientific" medicine, too! At worst, this will enable them to know what else their patients may be taking other than prescription medications. And at best, it will provide the patients with a wider range of choices. That's where the crux of the matter is: who decides what the patient's options are? Is it the doctor, deciding on his own initiative what he believes is best for the patient? Or should the patient be allowed to choose a potentially less effective treatment that the patient prefers? The modern medical community has so much knowledge, but what if some little plant unknown to them but known to many herbalists can cure what the doctors cannot? On the other hand, is it medically ethical for a doctor to allow his patient to take a herbal remedy that he knows will be of less help than a prescription drug? Since this country prides itself on personal freedom, this is a very tricky question, verging as it does on the fringes of the whole "right to die" debate.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 \| 04:03 PM It seems to me people take herbal remedies in the mistaken belief that "herbalists" know something medical science does not or does not want you to know. They think there is a worldwide conspiracy keeping these "cures" secret so that doctors can keep them sick and of course get rich using ineffective conventional treatment. I'm taking a big risk telling everyone this. If this message gets through, I'll probably be killed. If so, it's been nice knowing all of you. Please name a high school or mountain after me.
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 \| 04:26 PM Interesting comments in Bob Park's What's New online newsletter this week (July 29th) on the herbal remedy echinacea. <a href="http://bobpark.physics.umd.edu/current_issue.html">What's New</a>
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 \| 04:31 PM And I forgot. He also comments on that idiotic study about prayer for heart patients.
Maegan in Tampa, FL - USA Member	Posted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 \| 09:24 AM I was not under the impression that Ech. was used specifically for the use of colds. I was under the impression that it was used to help boost the immune system. I know that I was using it during hay fever season - to help give me a boost to fight off allergies (which were deffinately an allergy, and not a cold). I did read something about a lab study that tested the potency of ech. It concluded that of 11 brands, 5 failed multiple test. Tests of potency, lead contamination....etc. I guess that really has more to do with where/when/how they were grown/harvested. Although, the ech. I have bought in the past shows something on the side of the bottle that says how much ech. is in a single capsule...so I just figured that amount was what I was getting per dose. The place where I found this information also indicated a table that showed EXAMPLES of the test results, but not the test results - so I couldn't check to see if the brand I generally bought was part of the FAIL test group.
lizzy	Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 \| 08:02 PM You asked for proof. My next door neighbour had colon cancer. His levels were sky high.Then he was told about Flaxseed Oil by a naturopath.. He took one teaspoonful a day, mixed in yoghurt. The next time he went to the hospital for a test, the doctor could not believe the change. His levels were so low, so normal. Alfred didn't mention the fact that he had been taking Flaxseed Oil to the doctor, he did however, ask the doctor for the explanation, of how his levels were so low, so normal so very quickly, and the doctor shook his head, and said he couldn't guess, this was surprising indeed, he said.He had never seen this before.
lizzy	Posted: Thu Aug 04, 2005 \| 08:04 PM This is Lizzy again. I mut add, that luckily, Alfred did have his operation previously to taking the flaxseed Oil. Taking the Oil helped to reduce the levels. If there is cancerthere already, everyone knows, ofcourse, that you do have to have the operation. In every case. Do not gamble.
Boo in The Land of the Haggii... Member	Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 \| 02:22 AM Sadly, that's not proof, that's an anonymous anecdote.
lizzy	Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 \| 07:12 AM well, since that is a mere anonymous anecdote, I had burnt my hand very badly. I always have a nice big pot of aloe vera at home. I cut off a leaf, dribbled on the juice. The pain receded very quickly, although the nerves in my fingers were still very tender. Within two hours, the nerves had settled, and within three hours, my hand was back to normal. No blisters or discoloration of the skin. And no, this is not an anonymous anecdote, this is a Lizzy anecdote.
lizzy	Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 \| 07:18 AM Captain Al, I totally agree with you there. Fortunately for us, there are more and more people waking up to the power struggle that is going on. Natural medicine was very fine for all these thousands of years, now are no longer working. Right! Unfortunately, all the knowledge that mankind had gathered through the millenia, a lot has been lost, as we let it slip away, as we were dazzled by the power of authority. But we are waking up again! We are starting to identify the power systems that are erected to keep us broke and ignorant.
Boo in The Land of the Haggii... Member	Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 \| 11:21 AM Lizzy, it's still not proof. After all, we only have your word for it, and since we only have your word that you're even called Lizzy! I'm not trying to put you down, just trying to point out the difference between anecdotes and data. 😊
lizzy	Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 \| 06:28 PM This is Lizzy again. We had to take Albert Einstein's word for everything he had said. After all, most of his theories were in his head, then written down on paper. After all, how could he prove the fact that time moves in a certain way, that the universe expands, contracts, then expands again. Nor he could he prove the fact that energy is malleable, that human contact can alter how atoms move.... Lizzy
Mark-N-Isa in Midwest USA Member	Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 \| 06:47 PM How could Einstein "prove" these things Lizzy??? How about with Mathematics? Repeatable results? Peer review? Scientific/Mathematic formulas that produced repeatable and predictable results... just to name a few right off the top of my head. No one took his word for anything... Sounds like you should attend a few more science classes before you go around trying to apply logical thinking... to anything! :blank:
Charybdis in Hell Member	Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 \| 06:53 PM Lizzy, nobody took Einstein's word for anything. In fact, there was much disagreement over his theories. Nobody was confused about what they were because they were properly written out, it's just that some thought he was wrong. However, once experiments and observations were decided on it became possible to gather evidence to support his theories. Careful measurements of stars during eclipses showed that light does indeed warp around a mass. Other experiments with atomic clocks on extrememly fast moving jets showed that relative time does slow down with acceleration. And atomic weapons show quite devastatingly that mass and energy are the same. In the end the evidence accumulated supported the majority of his work. Not all - he wasn't perfect by any means - but enough that he's considered one of the greatest scientists ever.
lizzy	Posted: Fri Aug 05, 2005 \| 10:40 PM I agree with you. You are both right... I admit defeat on that score. You must also note though, that a lot of laboratories have done extensive studies on plants, and have found, that when there is a chemical imbalance in a body (illness), by adding the the right plant, which has the right chemical balance, can improve the imbalance in the human body, and improve the balance. Yes? Even here, in Australia, laboritories are snapping up native plants to analyse for chemical constituents. Unfortunately, our Aboriginese have had knowledge for the last 40,000 years, of different plants and how to use them, that have been ignored by the new colonists, and now a lot of that knowledge is gone. Of course, since Aboriginese didnt have anything written down, and hence,knowledge that was used for the last 40,000 years is not adequate enough. What a pity.
Accipiter Member	Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 \| 04:09 PM Lizzy, you said that "natural medicine was very fine for all these thousands of years, now are no longer working. Right!" That's not quite right. Natural medicines did often work, but not always well. And for a lot of ailments and injuries there simply was no medication. Life expectancies were rather short, infant mortality was high, and people were often diseased. Look at places in the modern world where modern medicine is not readily available; the people there depend almost entirely on traditional medicines, yet very many people die young of diseases that are treatable in more developed areas. The people thousands of years ago would have happily exchanged their condensed urine salves for streptomycin. And would you prefer to be treated with corticosteroids if you had a bad poison ivy rash, or would you rather have to drink a soup made from poison ivy leaves (an old traditional treatment, which often killed the patient)?
Captain Al in Vancouver Island, Canada Member	Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 \| 04:38 PM Lizzy, I wouldn't describe illness as a chemical imbalance. Illness are caused by viruses and bacteria, among other things. A chemical imbalance would cause death I think. "Chemical Imbalance" is jargon used by psuedo-medical practicioners to lend credibility to their snake oil remedies. On the matter of world-wide conspiracies that keep herbal "cures" secret, I don't think you picked up on the sarcasm in my post. I was not offering that as something I believe. Quite the contrary in fact. I wouldn't say mankind has let any useful knowledge slip away over time. Once again, this is a myth used to shore up psuedo-scientific ideas. People are not waking up to things, they are falling asleep at the wheel. Instead of investigating for themselves things that sound too good to be true, they are taking the easy way out and believing what they want to believe, just because it sounds good. This puts them at the mercy of charlatans who are only out to make a buck. That is one thing that mankind has not let slip away.
lizzy	Posted: Wed Aug 10, 2005 \| 07:43 PM Never for a moment would I suggest standing still, and not learning anything new,we must always keep striving to learn more about medicine, about everything around us. I would never presume to suggest that only the old ways are best. But to say that only pharmaceuticals can cure is looking at life like a horse with blinkers on. We must keep am open mind about all things. But for instance the Aboriginal ancients had healing remedies that passed on from generation to generation, and through politics it has wilted. Now, these old wise men who knew so many secrets are gone, and their knowledge is gone, because mo one would listen anymore. For instance, here is one little tid-bit. When my children were sick,with a very high temprature, I would make a bath, and pour a little vinegar into it. Just a bit. You cannot imagine the imediate lowering of temprature, not because of the warm water, but because the vinegar really helped. Now, instead I go through a chemist shop, and see hundreds of chema=ically based potions for lowering themperature, one more expensive than the next. I am not saying that they don't work, I am just saying, there are alernatives.
Page 1 of 2 pages 1 2 >

Note: This thread is located in the Old Forum of the Museum of Hoaxes.