What the Alternative Medicine Debate Is Really About

Alternative Medicine

I thought the article was well presented in terms of representing its facts. I understand that CAM is not a cure all thing, however I believe people should have access to alternative care when conventional care failed. I came from a long line of family in alternative care. Without it, I don't think I would be here today. I was very sick during my early childhood years. I had really bad coughs at night and was vomiting almost every night. By taking herbal medication it helped heal me physically and internally. In fact a lot of these CAM cares are well documented and proven it works. All we need is to take the time to look into it to understand how each of the techniques work.

Placebos and such

On the matter of the placebo effect, there is a Cochrane review that concluded that, except for a small category of self-assessed conditions, such a mild pain, there does not seem to be a placebo effect showing up in any trials.

What is called the placebo effect is likely to be the fact that most conditions go away or cure themselves. Possibly many of the claimed results from CAM are similar.

It does not seem (and is implausible, anyway) that the mind is able to cure physiological or biological conditions.

Of course, relief of pain or discomfort is valuable.

Not true

"It's important to note that standard medical approaches with

the possible exception of surgery(If it's properly conducted), does

not treat the underlying cause of any condition."

I'm sorry, but that's a load of B.S. Antibiotics treat the microbes that cause pneumonia, for example.

Nonsense

Ah yes, the "big pharma", "low income", "not in the US" and "standards are too high arguments." Money can, and is being made off of CAM - it is under the auspices of the DHSEA act of 1994 which allow supplements to largely be sold WITHOUT rigorous oversight by the FDA.

There is NOT one case of efficacy for the fringe therapies (energy medicine, homeopathy, accupuncture) which can not be attributed to closer patient attention and the stong mind-body placebo effect.

Mr. Mosher's aspirin analogy underlines the difference between many CAM advocates and the rest of the rational world. Aspirin is demonstrably effective, as are many naturally derived chemicals (herbs). The problem is that as sold today, they contain many additional components which may have a neagtive effect on the body. Individuals on HIV retro-virals are STRONGLY warned against herbal supplements which may undo the life preserving work of their particular cocktail.

The present medical debate over palliative approaches versus curative has been latched onto by unscrupulous CAM practitioners. Their argument, as the author notes, that as long as it provides some relief why not use it? The short answer is, indeed, why not. The longer answer expounds that the patient needs to be fully educated about their condition and options - preferably with a competent, EBM trained practitioner.

CAM Debate

If there is no money in it, it won't be researched. Herbal remedies cannot be patented, so Big Pharma is not interested in studies that will not beget big profits. Therefore we get things like Vioox and Thalidomide, chemotherapy at horrendous cost (monetary and physical) that usually only extends life only for a short time, etc. ad nauseum. One must remember that most drugs have an herbal basis. Something worked in a primitive society, isolate the "active ingredient", test it, patent it, and sell it for an immense profit.

If aspirin had to pass the testing required today, it in all probability would not get FDA approval. It was derived from willow bark.

CAM

It's important to note that standard medical approaches with

the possible exception of surgery(If it's properly conducted), does

not treat the underlying cause of any condition. Many doctors

engage in magical thinking when they blame CAM for not getting

a disease properly diagnosed treated. For many low income and

HMO patients the disease is simply not diagnosed or treated for a

variety reasons including lack of resources and lack of patient

education, and this has nothing to do with CAM. Our local HMO

only treats two kinds of patients well: trauma patients and cancer

patients. Everyone else has substandard care. Most physcians have

better treatment because they can afford better treatment, and

they are more educated, therefore they do not know how poor the

standard of care is for lower income americans. In other words they

compare CAM to standard medicine the way it should be practiced,

not the way medicine is actually practiced for middle and

lower income americas.A final coment is

that drugs and surgery are for the most part, have not been

proven safe and effective in the way they are actually adminstered.

THerefore CAM and standard measures are not very well researched.

By and large CAM patients are people who have not been satisfactorily

treated by standard measures.

Very good articles and well presented. Thanks

I'm not american, I'm Spanish and in my family there's always been an interest in CAM, mostly herbalism. I found the articles very interesting and informative and I can't understand the rejection this kind of alternative-complementary therapies provoke in many people. I will never say they are better than western medicine and in fact I consider that type of treatment the best one. But there are many times were simple illnesses are treated in western medicine with things that are the equivalent of trying to kill flies with missiles.

They do offer a good option as alternative in minor illnesses and a good complement in others as long as they don't interfere with western medicine. I can't understand how absolutely short-sighted is to dismiss without major reasons what has proven to work in some cases and quite well.

As far as I know to dismiss something per se is never been good science and it contradicts many arguments use against CAM.

I very much appreciate the articles and the views in them and would like to thank you for them. They are very good.

Best wishes.

Complementary/Alternative Medicine

What drove me to CAM: I woke up from routine heart surgery in 1995 with the left side of my body paralyzed by a stroke, caused by a wayward piece of tissue that broke away from the surgical site. I was 43 years old, married with two young children. My (very conventional) surgeon said, "Sorry you stroked, but heart-wise you're fine." He had done his job, the rest of my life was up to me. After a couple of months of occupational and physical therapy, my insurance company advised me that I had "plateaued," would regain no further function, and I should now "adapt" to my still considerable disabilities. Instead, I assembled my own rehab program of acupuncture (used o treat stroke for thousands of years in China), yoga, Pilates, Alexander technique, craniosacral therapy, massage, tai chi, and within a year had recovered completely, with only some residual weakness. the CAM approach treated me as a whole person - body, mind and spirit. Without it, I would still be the invalid that the conventional doctors had predicted. The experience led me to write several books with integrative physicians about the efficacy and value of this approach to healing. (More details of my experience here: http://www.ownyourhealth.wordpress.com)

I believe that conventional medicine has become hostage to formailism: the so called gold standard study has put blinders on researchers and those who believe them. Have they noticed that no country in the world now uses the gold standard for currency valuation? It is all about the relative market value of currencies, not their value in relation to real gold bullion.

So, by analogy, maybe gold standard medical enthusiasts should consider unmooring themselve from the oh so correct studies and see how people get better in the real world.

Also, this obsession with suppressing the placebo effect is finally, bizarre. Let's allow it.

Meanwhile, real people are getting help from alternative medicine, and not from conventional medicine. If it is all placebo, we should ask why are conventional doctors so miserable at placebo healing, while alternative practicioners are so good?

Alternative Medicine story

In October of 2007, the University of Connecticut Health Center held a debate on homeopathy. It was very insightful and surprising. There does in fact seem to be good research emerging that suggests efficacy. See transcript that follows. [note from Avery: I deleted the transcript--even the abridged version would have made the comment impossibly long, and the URL for the debate video was included.]

A Debate: Homeopathy - Quackery Or A Key To The Future of Medicine?

University of Connecticut Health Center

Farmington, Connecticut

October 25, 2007

Homeopathy is used by tens of millions of people around the world. On October 25, 2007, six internationally renowned experts examined the basic science as well as the clinical and historical evidence around this 200 year old system of medicine. Is homeopathy pure quackery as some contend or perhaps the future of medicine? What follows is an abridged version of this debate. To watch the full debate go to www.sonicfoundry.com/uconn.

Participants: Steven Novella M.D. (Yale), Rustum Roy Ph.D. (Penn State), Donald Marcus M.D. (Baylor), Iris Bell M.D., Ph.D. (Arizona), Nadav Davidovitch M.D., MPH, Ph.D., (Ben Gurion), Andre Saine N.D. (Canadian Academy for Homeopathy)