Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Science and Technology => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on August 14, 2017, 05:05:08 PM
-
The dangers of snake oil
http://www.realclearscience.com/quick_and_clear_science/2017/08/14/alternative_medicine_kills_cancer_patients_study_finds.html
-
I was talking to an acquaintance of mine about her episode of breast cancer, which she firmly believes was caused by HRT. Someone offered her a homeopathic route which she declined, saying that she wanted to live. She had chemo.
But I know that others who have felt that their cancers have been caused by chemical exposure of one kind it another - some genuinely are - have opted against more chemicals. It's not necessarily logical or fair or right.
As ever, I'm aware that there is a complementary aspect of treatment out there that should never ever take the place of medical treatment, but that can nevertheless help and support (and no, I don't mean homeopathy). Just as an example, another acquaintance used a dietary plan during her chemo as she felt it gave her some kind of control at a time when everything else was totally uncertain. I get that.
-
I was talking to an acquaintance of mine about her episode of breast cancer, which she firmly believes was caused by HRT. Someone offered her a homeopathic route which she declined, saying that she wanted to live. She had chemo.
But I know that others who have felt that their cancers have been caused by chemical exposure of one kind it another - some genuinely are - have opted against more chemicals. It's not necessarily logical or fair or right.
As ever, I'm aware that there is a complementary aspect of treatment out there that should never ever take the place of medical treatment, but that can nevertheless help and support (and no, I don't mean homeopathy). Just as an example, another acquaintance used a dietary plan during her chemo as she felt it gave her some kind of control at a time when everything else was totally uncertain. I get that.
Alternative medicine that works is, altogether now, medicine. Those pushing the snake oil aspect of this are happy to sneak in the move from 'complementary' (which is a dubious term itself) to 'alternative'. Oh and that cancer is cauzecy or treated by chemicals so both are just the same, which yourpist isn't clear in dealing with, is the type of dangerous mistake that kills people. At the level we are dealing with it's all chemicals.
-
I was talking to an acquaintance of mine about her episode of breast cancer, which she firmly believes was caused by HRT. Someone offered her a homeopathic route which she declined, saying that she wanted to live. She had chemo.
But I know that others who have felt that their cancers have been caused by chemical exposure of one kind it another - some genuinely are - have opted against more chemicals. It's not necessarily logical or fair or right.
As ever, I'm aware that there is a complementary aspect of treatment out there that should never ever take the place of medical treatment, but that can nevertheless help and support (and no, I don't mean homeopathy). Just as an example, another acquaintance used a dietary plan during her chemo as she felt it gave her some kind of control at a time when everything else was totally uncertain. I get that.
the whole planet and everything on it is made of chemicals, why is this so hard for people to understand?
-
the whole planet and everything on it is made of chemicals, why is this so hard for people to understand?
What are chemicals made of? :-\
-
What are chemicals made of? :-\
elements!
-
elements!
then it's just turtles all the way down my friend 😳
-
Something relevant to this topic from today's CNN news......
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/08/24/health/cinnamon-health-benefits/index.html
**********
Harvested from the inner bark of a tropical evergreen plant, cinnamon has been used in Ayurvedic medicine to treat respiratory and digestive problems for centuries.
But it's cinnamon's use as a medicinal agent that has scientists buzzing, trying to determine just how well its antioxidant capabilities might work to better our health.
"Medicine started as herbs and plants," said Lauri Wright, a spokeswoman for the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics. "So it almost comes full circle, as we're now going back and proving what some of these plant substances may do for health."
"I think the strongest evidence lies so far with diabetes and the promise of cinnamon and blood sugar control," Wright said, pointing to studies in test tubes and mice and even small studies in people showing that cinnamon helps with insulin sensitivity and glucose transport while decreasing inflammation.
"A lot of the studies have been in postmenopausal women and men of that age," said biochemist Amy Stockert, who studies cinnamon at Raabe College of Pharmacy at Ohio Northern University. "Some have found positive effects; other studies have not."
The antioxidant properties of cinnamon are also being studied for their impact on the formation of the plaques and tangles of Alzheimer's disease and other dementias. Cinnamaldehyde, a compound responsible for the spice's sweet smell, and epicatechin, a powerful antioxidant that's also in blueberries, red wine and chocolate, seem to offer some protection against the oxidative stress that damages tau, a key player in the development of dementia.
Using a computer model, biochemist Stockert found that cinnamon was as effective as resveratrol, an antioxidant in red wine known for anti-aging and disease-fighting properties, in activating SIRT-1 -- also known as the longevity gene because of its role in repairing DNA.
"In some cases, it did better than resveratrol," Stockert said. "We're talking anti-cancer, anti-aging, a very, very big deal if that is what is going on."
**********
-
Hi Sriram
Yes, the use of herbs, spices and vitamins all from natural sources is another reason, for me, to see signs of intelligent design. If you speak to a herbalist they will show you natural cures for many ailments. The other day I was reading about vitamin B!7 which can be found in certain grasses and is useful in combating cancer.
-
Hi Sriram
Yes, the use of herbs, spices and vitamins all from natural sources is another reason, for me, to see signs of intelligent design. If you speak to a herbalist they will show you natural cures for many ailments. The other day I was reading about vitamin B!7 which can be found in certain grasses and is useful in combating cancer.
Hi SweetPea.
Most people seem to have no clue as to what 'Alternative medicine' is.
Medical systems like Ayurveda for example, were developed nearly 3000 years ago with herbal cures for most diseases. Even surgeries were done. As the above article states, things will slowly move full circle such that more and more herbal cures will be identified based on ancient medical systems (using modern technology).
Its after all, about evolution of hybrid systems through such interactions of different systems. The usual slotting something as 'right' and something else as 'wrong' is clearly ridiculous.
About ID....yes. Wild animals for example seem to be able to identify and imbibe medicines during different illnesses, that are not a part of their normal diet. They seem to have an innate ability to self medicate. So, there is obviously some kind of intelligence built into Nature. Check out Zoopharmacognosy.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi Sriram
Yes, the use of herbs, spices and vitamins all from natural sources is another reason, for me, to see signs of intelligent design. If you speak to a herbalist they will show you natural cures for many ailments. The other day I was reading about vitamin B!7 which can be found in certain grasses and is useful in combating cancer.
Why does that indicate ID?
-
Why does that indicate ID?
Design in the sense that some plants have a purpose, a use, i.e. properties for healing.
-
Design in the sense that some plants have a purpose, a use, i.e. properties for healing.
so your god designed poisonous plants because?
-
so your god designed poisonous plants because?
Good question..... I've no idea, Nearly. Guess there must be a reason.
-
Good question..... I've no idea, Nearly. Guess there must be a reason.
Must there?
-
Good question..... I've no idea, Nearly. Guess there must be a reason.
And the rectal cancer that was mentioned earlier? This is why your position is illogical. There is no way you can falsify it because anything that is contradictory to your claim is ignored because it's a vacuous position. By the way do you worship your god?
-
And the rectal cancer that was mentioned earlier? This is why your position is illogical. There is no way you can falsify it because anything that is contradictory to your claim is ignored because it's a vacuous position. By the way do you worship your god?
Yes, it is difficult to understand and some do have explanations but I don't claim to have answers. No, I do not 'worship' God as such.
-
Yes, it is difficult to understand and some do have explanations but I don't claim to have answers. No, I do not 'worship' God as such.
Given that your position is illogical as you have accepted here your claim to see design is worthless.
-
Ok. But I still do see design.
Re DNA mentioned on another thread..... how is that not design?
-
Design in the sense that some plants have a purpose, a use, i.e. properties for healing.
Why would an intelligent designer leave it to chance that someone might happen to eat a medicinal plant? You refer to b7. This doesn't exist in plants but may be present on plants due to bacteria which can synthesise it. Why wouldn't an intelligent designer design humans able to synthesise b7 themselves?
-
Ok. But I still do see design.
Re DNA mentioned on another thread..... how is that not design?
Yes, but since your position is illogical what you 'see' is worthless. You have to show design and since your take is effectively everything is designed then it's not an argument simply an assertion based on a position you have taken that cannot be falsified and is illogical.
-
Ok. But I still do see design.
Re DNA mentioned on another thread..... how is that not design?
Do some research into the science sweetpea then you might avoid this type of personal incredulity post.
-
Why would an intelligent designer leave it to chance that someone might happen to eat a medicinal plant? You refer to b7. This doesn't exist in plants but may be present on plants due to bacteria which can synthesise it. Why wouldn't an intelligent designer design humans able to synthesise b7 themselves?
"It has long been considered that all animals with the exceptions of guinea pigs, monkeys, and humans can produce their own vitamin C. Scientist have extensively studied the human genome and identified the defective gene for the synthesis of the active enzyme protein, L-gulonolactone oxidase [...]"
So humans have a defective gene which means that, unlike almost all other animals, we can't synthesize vitamin C.
Do tell us more about this intelligent design, Sweet Pea..
-
"It has long been considered that all animals with the exceptions of guinea pigs, monkeys, and humans can produce their own vitamin C. Scientist have extensively studied the human genome and identified the defective gene for the synthesis of the active enzyme protein, L-gulonolactone oxidase [...]"
So humans have a defective gene which means that, unlike almost all other animals, we can't synthesize vitamin C.
Do tell us more about this intelligent design, Sweet Pea..
God made it that way in order to keep Tropicana in business.
-
So humans have a defective gene which means that, unlike almost all other animals, we can't synthesize vitamin C.
More than likely a result of the "fall".
You are not really thinking this through, are you? ::)
-
More than likely a result of the "fall".
You are not really thinking this through, are you? ::)
Were the guinea pigs just guinea pigs for this then?
-
Were the guinea pigs just guinea pigs for this then?
No. They were perfect guinea pigs who were within earshot of the 'event' and did nothing to prevent it. So were complicit by association.
Not a lot of people know that!
-
Maeght, not b7 but b17 (typo.. ! should have been 1)
http://artemisinine.net/news/the-wonders-of-laetrile-vitamin-b17.html
from the article:
How does laetrile-b17 perform?
Laetrile holds a precarious ingredient -cyanide-safe and sound within it.
The benzaldehyde and cyanide inside the Amygdalin perform in a comparable manner as does Chemo-therapy; merely it is more valuable.
The single way that can get wide open and arrive out is if the laetrile gets in touch with a malignant cell. Malignant cells have an enzyme that releases that cyanide, which comes out to annihilate the malignant cells. As soon as the cyanide moves out, a counterbalancing material also moves out that inhibits the cyanide from destroying any close by fit cells. By using vitamin B17 every day, malignant cells not at all have a likelihood to build up for the reason that the laetrile obliterates them very swiftly. In all the countries across the globe, it has been used on an experimental basis for treatment of a range of diseases. Currently it has been well acknowledged in US, Europe and Asia. Dietitians call it nitrolosides. While used for malignancy treatment, in its decontaminated mode, it is known as laetrile. Globally, laetrile is present in innate material. The most exact explanation for this marvelous material is that more than 12,000 fit to be eaten plants across the planet enclose this amazing stuff, among which Tunis grass, Johnson grass, and arrow grass, are to name a few.
Ancient civilizations are full of this mind-blowing substance:
The ancient civilizations across the globe that are relatively free from malignancies are known to utilize this incredible material: counting
The Hunzakut of Northwest Pakistan
The Akkadians on the Black Sea
The Eskimos
The Navaho Native Americans
Clusters in Africa
Clusters in Latin America
Added by myself: taking also into account the health of the above civilisations... they are not consuming a western diet, that has a lot to answer for.
-
Right, well b17 isn't a vitamin at all and clinical trials have shown it to be ineffective at treating cancer and potentially toxic. A classic example of the subject of this threaf but clearly not an indication of ID
-
From the about us page 'Artemisinine.rs is an online store in the field of selling, herbal supplements, nitritional products, vitamibs and minerals.'
-
Right, well b17 isn't a vitamin at all and clinical trials have shown it to be ineffective at treating cancer and potentially toxic. A classic example of the subject of this threaf but clearly not an indication of ID
Just to back up Maeght's remarks, there is no such vitamin as B17, it's just fancy name given to laetrile (no doubt in order to sell it). There is no laboratory evidence that laetrile works at all(except as a placebo), it is banned in U.S.A. and in Europe, I believe, it is not allowed to be sold. The reasons for this are because of the possibility of dangerous side effects.(it is a powerful source of cyanide).
I am writing this not to influence SweetPea's views at all because I don't think that is possible, but because anyone reading her post on the so called value of laetrile, especially on treating cancer, needs to be aware of the volume of criticism that this product has engendered. All evidence can be easily assessed by checking the internet.
As far as I'm concerned this product is a classic example of what the opening post is all about.
-
Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other type of reply from you guys.
Maeght, c'mon.... oh my goodness, the quoted site is selling herbal supplements, nutritional supplements, vitamins and minerals - how dire. If you go to your doctor about an ailment he/she will write you a prescription for some chemicals that you pay for.
Enki.... so it's the word of whoever's studies you have been reading against the word of the people on the quoted website. Yes, b17 laetrile is suggested by mainstream science as controversial because of it's nature, and guidance should be given if considering it's use, but chemotherapy is just as controversial although never 'sold' as such, a very toxic treatment with very nasty side effects.
Mainstream science is never going to recommend any other treatment, it is never going to look at or accept natural forms that may help in the treatment or prevention of cancer because that would interfere with 'the cancer machine' and Big Pharma's financial gains. We'll be very lucky to ever see a cure for cancer via mainstream precisely because of this reason.
-
Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other type of reply from you guys.
Maeght, c'mon.... oh my goodness, the quoted site is selling herbal supplements, nutritional supplements, vitamins and minerals - how dire. If you go to your doctor about an ailment he/she will write you a prescription for some chemicals that you pay for.
Not if you live in Scotland.
Enki.... so it's the word of whoever's studies you have been reading against the word of the people on the quoted website. Yes, b17 laetrile is suggested by mainstream science as controversial because of it's nature, and guidance should be given if considering it's use, but chemotherapy is just as controversial although never 'sold' as such, a very toxic treatment with very nasty side effects.
Chemotherapy isn't controversial: it is only prescribed by suitably qualified medics, since it is a specialist field, and is subject to disciplined review. It may well be 'nasty' and have limited effectiveness but it does have proven efficacy and research into more effective treatments continues.
Mainstream science is never going to recommend any other treatment, it is never going to look at or accept natural forms that may help in the treatment or prevention of cancer because that would interfere with 'the cancer machine' and Big Pharma's financial gains. We'll be very lucky to ever see a cure for cancer via mainstream precisely because of this reason.
Ah - the old conspiracy theory approach, which conveniently the ignores progress in medical science to date. I noted you banging on about 'design' elsewhere: so, is the biology of cancers designed?
-
Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other type of reply from you guys.
Maeght, c'mon.... oh my goodness, the quoted site is selling herbal supplements, nutritional supplements, vitamins and minerals - how dire. If you go to your doctor about an ailment he/she will write you a prescription for some chemicals that you pay for.
The point is that the website wants to sell you stuff and is going to say it works. It is not a reliable source and anyone who just accepts what such eebsitesc tells them is very gullible.
Enki.... so it's the word of whoever's studies you have been reading against the word of the people on the quoted website. Yes, b17 laetrile is suggested by mainstream science as controversial because of it's nature, and guidance should be given if considering it's use, but chemotherapy is just as controversial although never 'sold' as such, a very toxic treatment with very nasty side effects.
The studies are not people's opinion but are properly carried out, controlled and peer reviewed. Anyone who takes anecdotes on a website over such studies is very nieve.
Mainstream science is never going to recommend any other treatment, it is never going to look at or accept natural forms that may help in the treatment or prevention of cancer because that would interfere with 'the cancer machine' and Big Pharma's financial gains. We'll be very lucky to ever see a cure for cancer via mainstream precisely because of this reason.
Classic conspiracy theory stuff as pointed out by Gordon.
-
Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other type of reply from you guys.
.....
Enki.... so it's the word of whoever's studies you have been reading against the word of the people on the quoted website. Yes, b17 laetrile is suggested by mainstream science as controversial because of it's nature, and guidance should be given if considering it's use, but chemotherapy is just as controversial although never 'sold' as such, a very toxic treatment with very nasty side effects.
Mainstream science is never going to recommend any other treatment, it is never going to look at or accept natural forms that may help in the treatment or prevention of cancer because that would interfere with 'the cancer machine' and Big Pharma's financial gains. We'll be very lucky to ever see a cure for cancer via mainstream precisely because of this reason.
It most certainly is. Not just the 'word' of course but the evidence to back it up. It is not only rejected because of its dangerous nature, but that there is no evidence that it works.
Gordon has very adequately and clearly dismissed your point about chemotherapy so I'll pass over that.
mainstream science has its many faults, but if laetrile was so successful it would only need one person or organization to present their evidence in a peer reviewed journal. Unfortunately that has not been forthcoming.
You will notice that the Cancer Research Uk Charity, which is not government funded and whose purpose is to pioneer research in order to help cure cancer also gives clear information on progress towards this end and gives clear guidance and caution on alternative therapies, of which yours is one. I submit that this is worth reading from start to finish, but I very much doubt if you would have the slightest interest in it.
Others, however, might be inclined to do so.
http://www.cancerresearchuk.org/about-cancer/cancer-in-general/treatment/complementary-alternative-therapies/individual-therapies/laetrile
-
Well, I guess I shouldn't expect any other type of reply from you guys.
Maeght, c'mon.... oh my goodness, the quoted site is selling herbal supplements, nutritional supplements, vitamins and minerals - how dire. If you go to your doctor about an ailment he/she will write you a prescription for some chemicals that you pay for.
Enki.... so it's the word of whoever's studies you have been reading against the word of the people on the quoted website. Yes, b17 laetrile is suggested by mainstream science as controversial because of it's nature, and guidance should be given if considering it's use, but chemotherapy is just as controversial although never 'sold' as such, a very toxic treatment with very nasty side effects.
Mainstream science is never going to recommend any other treatment, it is never going to look at or accept natural forms that may help in the treatment or prevention of cancer because that would interfere with 'the cancer machine' and Big Pharma's financial gains. We'll be very lucky to ever see a cure for cancer via mainstream precisely because of this reason.
Some people seem to think that we are living in test tubes!! We cannot have all aspects of life tested and confirmed through clinical trials all the time.
Not that clinical trials are fool proof either! Many of them turn out to be wrong subsequently as many dietary and drug trials are evidence of.
We live through common sense, experience, anecdotes and wisdom. People who have greater exposure to varied experiences and ways of life will understand things that people with limited exposure will never understand and will keep questioning.
-
Some people seem to think that we are living in test tubes!! We cannot have all aspects of life tested and confirmed through clinical trials all the time.
We don't: knowledge can be incremental so that once something is sufficiently understood it isn't constantly re-tested unless new knowledge casts doubt on current understanding.
Not that clinical trials are fool proof either! Many of them turn out to be wrong subsequently as many dietary and drug trials are evidence of.
Which is why these trials, and disciplined research methods in general, are essential.
We live through common sense, experience, anecdotes and wisdom. People who have greater exposure to varied experiences and ways of life will understand things that people with limited exposure will never understand and will keep questioning.
Depends on the nature of the 'exposure' and what such people think they 'understand': they could be wrong, they may be insufficiently informed, they might be misled by the assumptions of others and then, of course, there may be the dreaded unknown unknowns that have yet to be understood.
To keep questioning is surely a good thing in comparison to assuming certainty regarding current understandings - misplaced certainty isn't ever helpful if it inhibits questioning.
-
We don't: knowledge can be incremental so that once something is sufficiently understood it isn't constantly re-tested unless new knowledge casts doubt on current understanding.
Which is why these trials, and disciplined research methods in general, are essential.
Depends on the nature of the 'exposure' and what such people think they 'understand': they could be wrong, they may be insufficiently informed, they might be misled by the assumptions of others and then, of course, there may be the dreaded unknown unknowns that have yet to be understood.
To keep questioning is surely a good thing in comparison to assuming certainty regarding current understandings - misplaced certainty isn't ever helpful if it inhibits questioning.
I agree Gordon....that questioning is important. But habitual skepticism can be dysfunctional.
Also...clinical trials have limited applicability and scope. They need money, time, people and focus. Experience and exposure can bring to our understanding many things that cannot be clinically tested in a lab.
-
I agree Gordon....that questioning is important. But habitual skepticism can be dysfunctional.
Why?
Also...clinical trials have limited applicability and scope. They need money, time, people and focus.
By their nature clinical trials have essential limitations as part of the method(s) used in relation to the details of what is being tested. Clinical trials without such discipline would be useless in reaching informed conclusions.
Experience and exposure can bring to our understanding many things that cannot be clinically tested in a lab.
It can also bring misunderstanding and ignorance: some things really do require the structure of the research methods.
-
Some people seem to think that we are living in test tubes!! We cannot have all aspects of life tested and confirmed through clinical trials all the time.
Not that clinical trials are fool proof either! Many of them turn out to be wrong subsequently as many dietary and drug trials are evidence of.
We live through common sense, experience, anecdotes and wisdom. People who have greater exposure to varied experiences and ways of life will understand things that people with limited exposure will never understand and will keep questioning.
It is important when alternative cures are being put forward that people are aware of potential hazards and the results of clinical trials. If individuals decide to go with these alternatives it is up to them. But I think to rely on anecdotes and websites who are looking to sell stuff is gullible and nieve and certainly doesn't indicate any greater exposure to life's experiences. To habitually distrust clinical trials is not wise.
-
To habitually distrust clinical trials is not wise.
Are you agreeing with Sriram when he said "But habitual skepticism can be dysfunctional."?
-
Hi everyone,
We must remember that Allopathy (modern medicine) did not drop from the skies. Modern medicine is only a recent branch of medical systems that have existed from ancient times. Modern medicine is not something out of this world, totally unconnected to other medical systems. Just as modern foods are not unconnected to traditional foods.
Modern medicine is just a more precise system (thanks to modern technology, computers etc.) of testing, documenting, diagnosing and prescribing medicines. It has evolved from traditional systems and is not essentially different from them.
We can also think of modern medicine mixing with traditional systems and evolving further into a more integrated system in the future.
We should stop taking political positions and treating traditional medical systems as though they are some horribly unimaginable, primitive and bizarre systems that people need to be warned against. The fact that you people keep referring to alternative medicine as 'snake oil' shows how little you know about it.
Maybe British people and Americans don't know much of alternative systems but most other countries do. They also have a long history of such systems.
That internet sites cannot be relied upon is obvious and does not apply only to alternative medicine. It applies to modern medicine also.
Cheers.
Sriram
-
Hi everyone,
We must remember that Allopathy (modern medicine) did not drop from the skies. Modern medicine is only a recent branch of medical systems that have existed from ancient times. Modern medicine is not something out of this world, totally unconnected to other medical systems. Just as modern foods are not unconnected to traditional foods.
Modern medicine is just a more precise system (thanks to modern technology, computers etc.) of testing, documenting, diagnosing and prescribing medicines. It has evolved from traditional systems and is not essentially different from them.
We can also think of modern medicine mixing with traditional systems and evolving further into a more integrated system in the future.
We should stop taking political positions and treating traditional medical systems as though they are some horribly unimaginable, primitive and bizarre systems that people need to be warned against. The fact that you people keep referring to alternative medicine as 'snake oil' shows how little you know about it.
Maybe British people and Americans don't know much of alternative systems but most other countries do. They also have a long history of such systems.
That internet sites cannot be relied upon is obvious and does not apply only to alternative medicine. It applies to modern medicine also.
Cheers.
Sriram
I have used a herbalist in the past and so am not closed to traditional medicines. However when sensationalist claims of cures for cancer are made which are unsupported by anything other than anecdotes this must be challenged.
-
Are you agreeing with Sriram when he said "But habitual skepticism can be dysfunctional."?
Possibly.
-
I have used a herbalist in the past and so am not closed to traditional medicines. However when sensationalist claims of cures for cancer are made which are unsupported by anything other than anecdotes this must be challenged.
Sensational claims by anyone need to be checked and reviewed. No doubt about that.
However, anecdotal claims need not always be dismissed outright. Waiting for clinical trials in every case may take forever.
Anecdote and generations of experience are also evidence....(sometimes more reliable than clinical trials, as some dietary norms have shown).
-
Sensational claims by anyone need to be checked and reviewed. No doubt about that.
However, anecdotal claims need not always be dismissed outright. Waiting for clinical trials in every case may take forever.
Anecdote and generations of experience are also evidence....(sometimes more reliable than clinical trials, as some dietary norms have shown).
Have you not considered that what you consider to be an effective traditional treatment may have taken fifty years for it to be spread from one village to another and that for possibly every effective traditional treatment now being used there may have been thousands of people dead because their operational parameters hadn't been determined?
In comparison with clinical trials the speed of development and efficacy of traditional medical systems was slow, ponderous and uncertain. Both are certainly evidence-based methods but one can evaluate evidence in a relatively short time the other takes - possibly - centuries.
-
Have you not considered that what you consider to be an effective traditional treatment may have taken fifty years for it to be spread from one village to another and that for possibly every effective traditional treatment now being used there may have been thousands of people dead because their operational parameters hadn't been determined?
In comparison with clinical trials the speed of development and efficacy of traditional medical systems was slow, ponderous and uncertain. Both are certainly evidence-based methods but one can evaluate evidence in a relatively short time the other takes - possibly - centuries.
Yes...modern clinical trials could be faster. But that's not what I am talking about.
-
Here's an 'alternative' medication that has worked very well or many (I know two). Only side effect is blocked nose - which many had anyway - easily sorted with Vicks sinex nasal spray or similar.
-
I'm properly allergic to corticosteroids. The only thing that heals my eczema is a balm made from plant oils and pot marigold (calendula to sound posh).
I'm also allergic to formaldehyde which means a lot of conventional stuff isn't safe for me - adhesives in dressings, preservatives in creams and some vaccines, plastics in some implants, some kinds of antiseptics, disinfectants and antibacterials to name but a few.
And like many people I'm allergic to nickel, so I was horrified to read this morning that women have been having implants made from nickel inserted into their Fallopian tubes. Wtf were the developers and doctors thinking? As a comparison nickel is banned from jewellery across the EU because so many people react to it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-41011890
-
As a comparison nickel is banned from jewellery across the EU because so many people react to it.
Pah! Pesky EU regulations. Begone I say. ;)
-
Hi SweetPea.
Most people seem to have no clue as to what 'Alternative medicine' is.
It's a misprint. The middle word ("to") has been accidentally dropped.
Medical systems like Ayurveda for example, were developed nearly 3000 years ago with herbal cures for most diseases. Even surgeries were done. As the above article states, things will slowly move full circle such that more and more herbal cures will be identified based on ancient medical systems (using modern technology).
Its after all, about evolution of hybrid systems through such interactions of different systems. The usual slotting something as 'right' and something else as 'wrong' is clearly ridiculous.
As has already been observed above, alternative medicine that is known to work is called "medicine".
About ID....yes. Wild animals for example seem to be able to identify and imbibe medicines during different illnesses, that are not a part of their normal diet. They seem to have an innate ability to self medicate. So, there is obviously some kind of intelligence built into Nature. Check out Zoopharmacognosy.
Yeah, that's bollocks.
Back in the days of yore, when there was a disease and a plant that could cure it, some animals had an affinity for the plant and some did not. Guess which ones survived to reproduce and pass on their genetic trait.