View Full Version : "Alternative" Practitioners have it backwards


Abi
11-29-13, 12:56 PM
Alternative practitioners constantly claim that conventional medicine treats only symptoms while they treat underlying causes. They’ve got it backwards.

Chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, acupuncturists, and other alternative medicine practitioners constantly criticize conventional medicine for “only treating the symptoms,” while alternative medicine allegedly treats “the underlying causes” of disease.

Nope. Not true. Exactly backwards. Think about it: When you go to a doctor with a fever, does he just treat the symptom? No, he tries to figure out what’s causing the fever. If it’s pneumonia, he identifies which microbe is responsible and gives you the right drugs to treat that particular infection. If you have abdominal pain, does the doctor just give you narcotics to treat the symptom of pain? No, he tries to figure out what’s causing the pain. If he determines you have acute appendicitis, he operates to remove your appendix.

Harriet Hall
Skeptical Inquirer Volume 34.1, January / February 2010

Read more... (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/one_true_cause_of_all_disease/)

BellaVita
11-29-13, 01:02 PM
Thank you, Abi! This needed to be said!

Amtram
11-29-13, 01:15 PM
It's a few years old, but still relevant. Harriet Hall sums things up nicely.

Unmanagable
11-29-13, 02:29 PM
It's a shame some folks won't look beyond this article and others like it to find a reputable and decent alternative healer that could truly help them. I find these comments way over the top and quite exaggerated, but that's just me.

All they have is wild, imaginative guesses. And they all disagree with one another.

Bull****. Speaking from my personal experience, and from those of others I know. They support and work quite well with each other, just as well as any of the medical staff I've worked with thus far. Wild and imaginative guessing sounds more like what most folks do trying to envision what reputable alternative healers do.

None of them can produce any evidence to support these claims. No alternative medicine has been scientifically shown to prevent disease or cure it. If it had, it would have been incorporated into conventional medicine and would no longer be “alternative.” Many "alternative" methods were in place way the he!! before modern medicine and funding came along. Another bs reference in my book. Skeptic talk, not real talk. Conventional medicine can't make as much money if they allow alternative methods to be successful.

Are these practitioners treating the underlying cause, or are they simply applying their one chosen tool to treat everything? Chiropractors treat every patient with chiropractic adjustments. What if a doctor used one treatment for everything? You have pneumonia? Here’s some penicillin. You have a broken leg? Here’s some penicillin. You have diabetes? Here’s some penicillin. Acupuncturists only know to stick needles in people. Homeopaths only know to give out ridiculously high dilutions that amount to nothing but water. Therapeutic touch practitioners only know to smooth out the wrinkles in imaginary energy fields. They are not trying to determine any underlying cause; they are just using one treatment indiscriminately.

GP's are varied in their treatment methods and what they prescribe, the alternative methods listed are specialized. Of course they focus in one area, their specialty.


Maybe it boils down to a mutual tolerance of delusions (okay, I’ll believe that you are Jesus if you believe that I’m Napoleon). For the cynical, follow the money: “I won’t interfere with your livelihood if you don’t interfere with mine.”


Following the money is what it's all about in many areas of both arenas. The alternative field just doesn't get to play with as much of it.


Just like everything else we, as consumers, have to navigate. Each field has it's faults and blemishes. Being open minded enough to not totally discount one or the other is where the real healing is.

daveddd
11-29-13, 02:36 PM
are we treating the underlying cause of mental illness now? i havent come across it

BellaVita
11-29-13, 02:39 PM
are we treating the underlying cause of mental illness now? i havent come across it

Can science do that yet?

As soon as an ADHD cure is on the market, I'm on board.

daveddd
11-29-13, 02:40 PM
Can science do that yet?

As soon as an ADHD cure is on the market, I'm on board.

no, they just treat the symptoms

BellaVita
11-29-13, 02:42 PM
no, they just treat the symptoms

So therefore = limitations

For all industries

Until science can conceive.

Abi
11-29-13, 02:45 PM
The predominant underlying causes of mental illnesses are one or more of:

* neurochemical imbalances
* neurophysiological damage / injury and
* traumatic life experiences.

The predominant treatments are:

*medications such as SSRI's, stimulants, mood stabilisers and benzodiazepines, which correct neurochemical imbalances;
*empirically proven counselling and psychotherapeutic methods to help patients deal with trauma;
*in some cases surgery where there are physiological causes like tumours and lesions.

So yes, we are absolutely treating them.

daveddd
11-29-13, 02:46 PM
which neurochemical imbalances have been proven as an underlying cause of mental illness?

daveddd
11-29-13, 02:47 PM
i do agree with the psychology part, thats the most important

i thought science thought psychology was hocus pocus?

BellaVita
11-29-13, 02:50 PM
I'd like to point out there is a difference between "treat" and "cure."

Fuzzy12
11-29-13, 02:50 PM
i do agree with the psychology part, thats the most important

i thought science thought psychology was hocus pocus?

Psychology is a branch of science.. :scratch:

daveddd
11-29-13, 02:52 PM
Psychology is a branch of science.. :scratch:

i thought it was psuedo science

because tramatic and life experiences cant be replicated in studies to prove cause

Abi
11-29-13, 02:53 PM
There are scientific and non-scientific approaches to psychology.

Scientific approaches involve a significant emphasis on neurobiology, and rigorous testing of any hypotheses regarding the nature of mental illness, statistical evaluation of the efficacy of psychotherapeutic methodology etc.

Non-scientific approaches involve people like Sigmund Freud pulling idea out of their a** and others following them as if they were Gospel.

daveddd
11-29-13, 02:56 PM
There are scientific and non-scientific approaches to psychology.

Scientific approaches involve a significant emphasis on neurobiology, and rigorous testing of any hypotheses regarding the nature of mental illness, statistical evaluation of the efficacy of psychotherapeutic methodology etc.

Non-scientific approaches involve people like Sigmund Freud pulling idea out of their a** and others following them as if they were Gospel.

im not in love with any specific psychologist

but there is a whole axis in the dsm based off freuds work with defense mechanisms

Fuzzy12
11-29-13, 02:57 PM
i thought it was psuedo science

because tramatic and life experiences cant be replicated in studies to prove cause

It can still be studied using a scientific method. For example, you could look at a sample population and see if you can find a relationship between behaviour, function, emotions, etc and for example trauma and life experiences.

I think, if you are comparing psychology and psychiatry they aren't really in opposition to each other but rather complement each other.

Many psychiatrists too work together with psychologists to offer their patients comprehensive care. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

daveddd
11-29-13, 02:58 PM
im still curious about these chemical imbalances that are spoken about as fact

i havent seen them

daveddd
11-29-13, 02:58 PM
It can still be studied using a scientific method. For example, you could can look at a sample population and see if you can find a relationship between behaviour, function, emotions, etc and for example trauma and life experiences.

I think, if you are comparing psychology and psychiatry they aren't really in opposition to each other but rather complement each other.

Many psychiatrists too work together with psychologists to offer their patient comprehensive care. It doesn't have to be one or the other.

here it seems it has to be one or the other

Amtram
11-29-13, 03:06 PM
im still curious about these chemical imbalances that are spoken about as fact

i havent seen them

They've been manipulated in animals, with and without medications, and using several different methods, and there have been cadaver studies using dead human brains to observe number, type, and locations of specific chemical receptors.

BellaVita
11-29-13, 03:06 PM
im still curious about these chemical imbalances that are spoken about as fact

i havent seen them

I'm just throwing this out there -

Perhaps since there is a positive response once SSRIs take action and act on the neurochemicals they were engineered to target, this can then count as "treating" a chemical imbalance, as chemical/whatever changes occurred due to response to the administered SSRI, thus being deemed as suitable evidence(possibly wrong word) that a chemical imbalance was treated.

(Well, once this administration of x has been done so many times with consistent results)

Atleast, it strongly points that way.

BellaVita
11-29-13, 03:07 PM
Amtram got it.

:)

daveddd
11-29-13, 03:09 PM
I'm just throwing this out there -

Perhaps since there is a positive response once SSRIs take action and act on the neurochemicals they were engineered to target, this can then count as "treating" a chemical imbalance, as chemical/whatever changes occurred due to response to the administered SSRI, thus being deemed as suitable evidence(possibly wrong word) that a chemical imbalance was treated.

(Well, once this administration of x has been done so many times with consistent results)

Atleast, it strongly points that way.

i agree ssris treat symptoms of several different disorders very well

i just dont believe anyone has concluded that means a chemical balance is a cause, not an effect

or that its just simple mood enhancement

daveddd
11-29-13, 03:13 PM
They've been manipulated in animals, with and without medications, and using several different methods, and there have been cadaver studies using dead human brains to observe number, type, and locations of specific chemical receptors.

i believe there are chemical receptors

i just have a hard time believing what 20%(total mental illness) are born with bad ones

Dizfriz
11-29-13, 03:13 PM
which neurochemical imbalances have been proven as an underlying cause of mental illness?

I hate to get into this again but it is important.

Science does not "prove" anything. All it can do is support or falsify. Science is mostly inductive in nature and as such has to leave open the possibility the new data can come in that can change the picture therefore prove or proof is not an issue that science can address. In science, you can "falsify" which comes close to disprove but it is the term science uses. Generally one does not say a hypothesis has been disproven but that it has been falsified.

In this case, just to name a few, serotonin is very involved in depression, dopamine is very involved with ADHD, genetics is very involved with bipolar, autism and ADHD. These are well supported by research and have never been falsified.

These are very well supported but no one is suggesting that they are the "Cause" but are part of the overall causative picture.

Just to clarify an, IMO, important point or so.

Proof is for booze and math, not science.


Now back to your regularly scheduled debate,

Dizfriz

BellaVita
11-29-13, 03:18 PM
:goodpost: Several good points.

Dizfriz
11-29-13, 03:20 PM
i believe there are chemical receptors

i just have a hard time believing what 20%(total mental illness) are born with bad ones

I don't feel that mental illness is necessarily caused by "bad" chemical receptors. but I am not real sure just what you mean by this.

Could you clarify a little?

Thanks,

Dizfriz

daveddd
11-29-13, 03:22 PM
I don't feel that mental illness is necessarily caused by "bad" chemical receptors. but I am not real sure just what you mean by this.

Could you clarify a little?

Thanks,

Dizfriz

it was stated earlier as a cause

i just said i believe they are involved, as an effect, but not that they cause



so almost like they are a symptom

daveddd
11-29-13, 03:44 PM
anyway i agree very much doctors try to find the physical cause, i just dont think hollistic people view it the way this person makes it out

how does this apply to mental illness?

what is considered alternative in psycology?

i dont even know

Abi
11-29-13, 03:57 PM
The writer is certainly exaggerating to an extent for literary effect, but if you read books and other literature provided by these people (spiritual/energy healers, chiropractors, naturopaths, etc), she's not far off the mark.

Dave, you're one who puts a high degree of value on personal experience. So let's talk about your experience.

You have stated that you have ADHD and Bipolar, and that you have had positive results with stimulants. You present as very sane and non-manicky, so I presume you take a mood stabiliser as well.

So, have you ever been to any chiropractors/energy healers/naturopaths? Have you found ANYTHING other than medication significantly helpful in managing your ADHD or ANYTHING other than meds and psychotherapy helpful in managing your bipolar?

dvdnvwls
11-29-13, 04:02 PM
My belief:
Science-based medicine has not solved ADHD. Current science-based treatment is "the best we've found so far through trial and error". Current non-science-based treatment is working by trial and error in some different directions - starting with different hypotheses. Some of those hypotheses are reasonable; some of them are stupid. Non-scientific methods do not weed out stupid hypotheses very well. However, maybe the trial-and-error process of someone working in a non-scientific way could bring to light something new and valuable.

I think the major difference between the scientific and non-scientific approaches is that in the non-scientific methods, a beloved hypothesis is held higher than the truth. Real scientific practitioners throw away their hypothesis if it gets proved wrong.

daveddd
11-29-13, 04:04 PM
I use personal expierence when it matches other peoples expierence


I truly don't believe any of my issues are special or unique

To answer the question. Yes mindfulness for bipolar.

But that's grouped with spirituality So I guess that's alternative

Abi
11-29-13, 04:07 PM
Fair enough. Glad it helps.

Dizfriz
11-29-13, 04:09 PM
it was stated earlier as a cause i just said i believe they are involved, as an effect, but not that they cause so almost like they are a symptom I see what you are saying. Dave,

This is just my opinion, I think that most mental illness are primarily but not wholly genetic in nature. By genetic I mean all that influences the expression of the genes which includes epigenetics and probably some psychological factors. In other words whatever is involved in translating genotype to phenotype.

So, in this view we are looking the path from genetics (genotype) to phenotypes (who and what we are) in interaction with the environment.

So in this approach, the neurophysical; neurotransmitters, receptors and so on, is neither the cause nor a result but part of the whole picture which finally ends up with what one does, feels, thinks and so on.


This is just my approach to the issue so take it for what it is.

Dizfriz

Amtram
11-29-13, 07:29 PM
See, dave, you actually hit on the point of the article - did you read it all the way through? The point Dr. Hall is making is that alternative practices decide their practice works, then come up with an explanation as to why their practice works on various conditions, and then make up a cause for the condition or disease that would make it believable that their treatment would work on curing it. They don't actually look for what causes the problem, because 1.) they don't have the knowledge or technology to find it, and 2.) finding the actual cause would reveal that their method had absolutely no potential for actually treating it!

So once they've decided what causes something so that their treatment can be proclaimed a treatment, all their "research" efforts go towards proving that they were right, not towards actually finding any legitimate causes. You will never, ever see an alternative practice as a whole go back and say, "oh, wait - we found out that this is caused by a virus, and we really can't cure it with acupuncture!"

The trial and error of scientific medicine is still based upon a foundation of evidence found in prior research, research that alternative practitioners don't do in the first place. It's at least got a reason for being tested in the first place, because evidence shows it's a possibility. And when you get the error result, they don't keep testing and testing and testing the same thing over and over again because they really want it to be right. They use that as evidence of what can be ruled out in that particular set of variables and move on to the things that show promise.

Dr. Hall says later in the article, "Where science finds complexity, alternative medicine imagines simplicity. As H.L. Mencken said, 'For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple—and wrong.'"

daveddd
11-29-13, 07:36 PM
See, dave, you actually hit on the point of the article - did you read it all the way through? The point Dr. Hall is making is that alternative practices decide their practice works, then come up with an explanation as to why their practice works on various conditions, and then make up a cause for the condition or disease that would make it believable that their treatment would work on curing it. They don't actually look for what causes the problem, because 1.) they don't have the knowledge or technology to find it, and 2.) finding the actual cause would reveal that their method had absolutely no potential for actually treating it!

So once they've decided what causes something so that their treatment can be proclaimed a treatment, all their "research" efforts go towards proving that they were right, not towards actually finding any legitimate causes. You will never, ever see an alternative practice as a whole go back and say, "oh, wait - we found out that this is caused by a virus, and we really can't cure it with acupuncture!"

The trial and error of scientific medicine is still based upon a foundation of evidence found in prior research, research that alternative practitioners don't do in the first place. It's at least got a reason for being tested in the first place, because evidence shows it's a possibility. And when you get the error result, they don't keep testing and testing and testing the same thing over and over again because they really want it to be right. They use that as evidence of what can be ruled out in that particular set of variables and move on to the things that show promise.

Dr. Hall says later in the article, "Where science finds complexity, alternative medicine imagines simplicity. As H.L. Mencken said, 'For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple—and wrong.'"

i dont have an issue with science

its just everything is always so harsh and black and white, when something isnt proven with science

when really science hasnt proved much everyone in the field of psychology didnt really already know

daveddd
11-29-13, 08:41 PM
I use personal expierence when it matches other peoples expierence


I truly don't believe any of my issues are special or unique

To answer the question. Yes mindfulness for bipolar.

But that's grouped with spirituality So I guess that's alternative

this still raises doubt for

mindfulness seen as spirituality and alternative

yet it has been scientifically proven to be the gold standard in the treatment of one of the most devastating psychological problems in the books, borderline personality (or as linehan would prefer it be called, emotional dysregulation disorder )

maybe the line between alternative and science just needs adjusted a bit

Lunacie
11-29-13, 09:05 PM
Alternative practitioners constantly claim that conventional medicine treats only symptoms while they treat underlying causes. They’ve got it backwards.

Chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, acupuncturists, and other alternative medicine practitioners constantly criticize conventional medicine for “only treating the symptoms,” while alternative medicine allegedly treats “the underlying causes” of disease.

Nope. Not true. Exactly backwards. Think about it: When you go to a doctor with a fever, does he just treat the symptom? No, he tries to figure out what’s causing the fever. If it’s pneumonia, he identifies which microbe is responsible and gives you the right drugs to treat that particular infection. If you have abdominal pain, does the doctor just give you narcotics to treat the symptom of pain? No, he tries to figure out what’s causing the pain. If he determines you have acute appendicitis, he operates to remove your appendix.

Harriet Hall
Skeptical Inquirer Volume 34.1, January / February 2010

Read more... (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/one_true_cause_of_all_disease/)

Abi, have you yourself seen alternative practicioners making those claims?
I haven't.

I am a certified Reiki practicioner, and every Reiki practicioner I've met says
that Reiki should be used in conjunction with conventional treatment, not as
a replacement for such treatment.

I've been to chiropractors and acupuncturists and massage therapists and
have never heard such a claim being made.

daveddd
11-29-13, 09:31 PM
Abi, have you yourself seen alternative practicioners making those claims?
I haven't.

I am a certified Reiki practicioner, and every Reiki practicioner I've met says
that Reiki should be used in conjunction with conventional treatment, not as
a replacement for such treatment.

I've been to chiropractors and acupuncturists and massage therapists and
have never heard such a claim being made.

extremist views like this topic make it feel like an attack on some peoples belief system, even if its not mine, idk,

you can find some crazy examples of bad for everything , including science

i cant count the ridiculous amount of insane conclusions ive seen drawn in scientific studies , but i know thats the bad stuff


sales 101 i guess, never buy from someone who only bad talks the competition , show me why your product is better

Amtram
11-29-13, 09:53 PM
I'm afraid to say that I've seen altogether too many claims of miraculous "guaranteed cures" from alternative practices to agree with anyone's claims of never having heard of them themselves. There are a number of alternative practitioners who go so far as to say that when one of their patients not only doesn't improve, but dies, that it is the fault of the patient for not being fully invested in believing the treatment, or for having not followed it down to some nit-picky detail like taking one supplement at the wrong time one day of the entire treatment.

Chiropractic went so far as to invent a new organ in the human body (which has never been found, ever, in anyone) to explain how it treated a number of conditions.

Believing a treatment should work should never be a requirement for a treatment to work. If a treatment works, it works whether or not you believe it.

daveddd
11-29-13, 09:56 PM
I'm afraid to say that I've seen altogether too many claims of miraculous "guaranteed cures" from alternative practices to agree with anyone's claims of never having heard of them themselves. There are a number of alternative practitioners who go so far as to say that when one of their patients not only doesn't improve, but dies, that it is the fault of the patient for not being fully invested in believing the treatment, or for having not followed it down to some nit-picky detail like taking one supplement at the wrong time one day of the entire treatment.

Chiropractic went so far as to invent a new organ in the human body (which has never been found, ever, in anyone) to explain how it treated a number of conditions.

Believing a treatment should work should never be a requirement for a treatment to work. If a treatment works, it works whether or not you believe it.

yes , unfortunately its a perfect line of work for con men to get into

Lunacie
11-30-13, 12:26 AM
I'm afraid to say that I've seen altogether too many claims of miraculous "guaranteed cures" from alternative practices to agree with anyone's claims of never having heard of them themselves. There are a number of alternative practitioners who go so far as to say that when one of their patients not only doesn't improve, but dies, that it is the fault of the patient for not being fully invested in believing the treatment, or for having not followed it down to some nit-picky detail like taking one supplement at the wrong time one day of the entire treatment.

Chiropractic went so far as to invent a new organ in the human body (which has never been found, ever, in anyone) to explain how it treated a number of conditions.

Believing a treatment should work should never be a requirement for a treatment to work. If a treatment works, it works whether or not you believe it.

I agree that belief shouldn't be needed. Either treatment helps or it doesn't.

Clearly you've had different experiences than I've had. I'm not lying when I say
that no one has ever promised me a cure, and I'm the type who has to see it to
believe it anyway.

Chiropractic didn't help me. Accupuncture did. Sacro-cranial massage did. Reiki
does too. I've never been to a naturopath or the other people Abi mentioned.
So I don't know what kind of claims they may make.

Abi
11-30-13, 06:54 AM
Abi, have you yourself seen alternative practicioners making those claims?
I haven't.

I am a certified Reiki practicioner, and every Reiki practicioner I've met says
that Reiki should be used in conjunction with conventional treatment, not as
a replacement for such treatment.

I've been to chiropractors and acupuncturists and massage therapists and
have never heard such a claim being made.

Around about mid 2006, I decided that the world was a dangerous and evil place, and that as such I was perfectly justified in being anxious/fearful , depressed, and angry (dysphorically hypomanic). I decided that anyone who wasn't fearful, depressed and angry must be either stupid or amoral and decided that I did not need medication, and went off it. I then went on a 2 year unmedicated hypomanic rampage (which ended in my almost being locked away) during which I read all sorts of alternative literature, and yes, for the most part, it was of the nature described in the article quoted in the OP.

SB_UK
11-30-13, 07:50 AM
Alternative practitioners constantly claim that conventional medicine treats only symptoms while they treat underlying causes. They’ve got it backwards.


No need for alternative medicine.
No need for conventional medicine.

Simply need for an equal society.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whitehall_Study)
I don't understand alternative medicine - though it may work through 'placebo'.
I do understand how conventional medicines have been generated without an understanding of the human body.

And also how the pharmaceutical industry is about to collapse
- 'patent cliff (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/572ea510-9452-11e1-bb47-00144feab49a.html#axzz2m85Iqs26)'.

With each passing day we realise how little we understand human biology - not how much we know.

We don't need any alternative or pharmaceutical intervention.

We need to eliminate toxic stress using the mighty fine tool of epidemiology to identify what is stressful.

dvdnvwls
11-30-13, 08:48 AM
SB - if this is true, then a small experimental society built on your equality model will have no diseases or disorders. Why don't you simply try it?

Abi
11-30-13, 08:54 AM
I'll sign up, provided airfare and accommodation is provided.

I'll even eat vegan ketogenic, tho' I can't be held responsible for how I might behave if denied complex carbs and animal protein.

And I'm bringing my meds.

someothertime
11-30-13, 09:13 AM
Defiine equal

daveddd
11-30-13, 09:17 AM
Defiine equal

without meds i have become pretty lazy

i was hoping i could be the guy on the couch till things start working

BellaVita
11-30-13, 10:11 AM
Abi, have you yourself seen alternative practicioners making those claims?
I haven't.

I am a certified Reiki practicioner, and every Reiki practicioner I've met says
that Reiki should be used in conjunction with conventional treatment, not as
a replacement for such treatment.

I've been to chiropractors and acupuncturists and massage therapists and
have never heard such a claim being made.

Lunacie, I have had first-hand experience with homeopaths, naturopaths, massage therapists, herbalists etc....

I had to stay at a certain place for 2 months after I got out of the hospital for heart problems.

They all believed that their ways were the ONLY way, that conventional medicine was poison getting put into our body and that we weren't "made" for that. Said we were only made for the "natural"

Well, their "natural" outlook, what they deemed as CURES, didn't work on me.

*They were surprised and chalked it up to moral failing(on my end) when they couldn't get my ADHD and what I didn't know was mania at the time, under control.*

In fact, I also had allergic reactions and my behavior got out-of-control while using their "natural" remedies. (They took me off some of my meds because they thought they were poison! I went insane!)

I almost lost my s***. Well, I did. And I would debate with them but to no avail they were thick headed and unwilling to listen.

As dvd said, they held whatever hypothesis higher than the truth.

daveddd
11-30-13, 10:22 AM
Lunacie, I have had first-hand experience with homeopaths, naturopaths, massage therapists, herbalists etc....

I had to stay at a certain place for 2 months after I got out of the hospital for heart problems.

They all believed that their ways were the ONLY way, that conventional medicine was poison getting put into our body and that we weren't "made" for that. Said we were only made for the "natural"

Well, their "natural" outlook, what they deemed as CURES, didn't work on me.

*They were surprised and chalked it up to moral failing(on my end) when they couldn't get my ADHD and what I didn't know was mania at the time, under control.*

In fact, I also had allergic reactions and my behavior got out-of-control while using their "natural" remedies. (They took me off some of my meds because they thought they were poison! I went insane!)

I almost lost my s***. Well, I did. And I would debate with them but to no avail they were thick headed and unwilling to listen.

As dvd said, they held whatever hypothesis higher than the truth.

yea now this i have a problem with

a local news story here recently, was a couple that refused medical treatment for their son with cancer (religous beliefs)

he died, they only got probation or something

i thought they should have gone away a long time


i guess its experience and perception

SB_UK
11-30-13, 11:06 AM
I'll sign up, provided airfare and accommodation is provided.

I'll even eat vegan ketogenic, tho' I can't be held responsible for how I might behave if denied complex carbs and animal protein.

And I'm bringing my meds.


exercise, fasting and diet are some of the way towards the solution
- but nobody's listening because standard and alternative medicine are selling easy options.

Remove (di)stress (there's only 1 factor which needs to be changed) - and everything else (disease etc) will correct.

SB_UK
11-30-13, 11:07 AM
Defiine equal

The opposite of whatever Marmot's Whitehall study defines as being the inequality which gives rise to disease.

The research group aims to build a causal model leading from social position

Lunacie
11-30-13, 12:06 PM
I really had no idea there was so much mental indoctrination going on concerning alternative treatments.

All I can do is repeat that I have not once seen that kind of attitude in those who are certified Reiki practicioners.

Unmanagable
11-30-13, 12:15 PM
I've not seen that attitude in any of the practitioners I've chosen, either. I've read hyped up ads claiming "cures", but have learned to navigate the real deal from the BS, and to know there is no cure, just treatments to help better manage.

Treatments, or lack thereof, based on religious beliefs have been an issue, for sure. My sister lived through that years ago and I witnessed it first hand. She's lucky to be here.

But reiki, chiropractors, yoga instructors, registered dietitians, massage therapists, myofascial therapy, etc. have all been very educated and professional, work well together with my doctors, and have greatly benefited my overall health.

Results may vary, but totally dogging ALL based on a bad few isn't productive or beneficial in any arena.

BellaVita
11-30-13, 12:22 PM
Results may vary, but totally dogging ALL based on a bad few isn't productive or beneficial in any arena.

Agreed.

One has to find what works for them.

That's ultimately what's important.

someothertime
11-30-13, 12:30 PM
I kind of relate to what Bella is saying... My experience has been with pretty liberal practitioners... Call it the placebo effect I dunno but I had some success... But I have definitely come across a certain "absoluteness" from some of the practitioners...

And in a way... It's sort of necessary... If you do not have faith / an open mind and body... You've blocked the pathways before you begin. You need to believe for some of these alternative treatments to reach the limits of your being. ( the sheer diversity of methods, standards and approaches I think is what introduces so much dissatisfaction and "bunching"... Kind of like rolling warhammer die/\

Call it "reverse mindfullness or top and bottom wholeopathy"... I don't know

So in a way... you can see where this "Total Embracment" overlaps with a perception of "my way"... ( which btw is no different to common western ascertations )

BellaVita
11-30-13, 12:38 PM
I kind of relate to what Bella is saying... My experience has been with pretty liberal practitioners... Call it the placebo effect I dunno but I had some success... But I have definitely come across a certain "absoluteness" from some of the practitioners...

And in a way... It's sort of necessary... If you do not have faith / an open mind and body... You've blocked the pathways before you begin. You need to believe for some of these alternative treatments to reach the limits of your being. ( the sheer diversity of methods, standards and approaches I think is what introduces so much dissatisfaction and "bunching"... Kind of like rolling warhammer die/\

Call it "reverse mindfullness or top and bottom wholeopathy"... I don't know

So in a way... you can see where this "Total Embracment" overlaps with a perception of "my way"... ( which btw is no different to common western ascertations )

I agree with you to some extent.

But all the believing/faith in the world won't cause something to work (in the specified way wanted) if it is not designed to do so.

And if "it" does, the results are more or less placebo, as you said.

dvdnvwls
11-30-13, 12:50 PM
The opposite of whatever Marmot's Whitehall study defines as being the inequality which gives rise to disease.
OK, so, just for clarity, please state in positive terms what that opposite is.

Lunacie
11-30-13, 01:19 PM
I kind of relate to what Bella is saying... My experience has been with pretty liberal practitioners... Call it the placebo effect I dunno but I had some success... But I have definitely come across a certain "absoluteness" from some of the practitioners...

And in a way... It's sort of necessary... If you do not have faith / an open mind and body... You've blocked the pathways before you begin. You need to believe for some of these alternative treatments to reach the limits of your being. ( the sheer diversity of methods, standards and approaches I think is what introduces so much dissatisfaction and "bunching"... Kind of like rolling warhammer die/\

Call it "reverse mindfullness or top and bottom wholeopathy"... I don't know

So in a way... you can see where this "Total Embracment" overlaps with a perception of "my way"... ( which btw is no different to common western ascertations )

I agree with you to some extent.

But all the believing/faith in the world won't cause something to work (in the specified way wanted) if it is not designed to do so.

And if "it" does, the results are more or less placebo, as you said.

I don't think it's so much about belief that the treatment will work, as an
openness to let it work. If the person feels a need to hold onto the illness,
no medicine or treatment will work as well as when the person is open to
the possibility that it may help.

One of my first Reiki treatments was done on a person who seemed open
to the treatment, but had blocked his mind/spirit to any chance of feeling
better. Nothing I did was helpful to him, but it provided a valuable lesson
for me.

Another early treatment was on someone who very much distrusted the idea
of alternative treatments (his dad was a doctor and his mom was a nurse so
it was understandable) but he was open to the possibility. He could not admit
to me that he felt the energy working at the time or that it did help with the
problem, but later told a mutual friend that he was surprised how much it
helped.

Amtram
11-30-13, 02:56 PM
Really, there's no shortage of claims made that there is "one true cause for all disease," which is what the article in the OP was talking about. Really, if you've been commenting here but haven't read the article, that's what it comes down to. It's saying that the problem is that alternative practices make claims that their method is the only one needed to prevent or cure all diseases. Some new groups have cropped up in which they all accept that one anothers' alternate practice is equally helpful, even when their philosophies contradict.

This idea that there is a single cause for disease, and that a single thing can prevent it or cure it is rampant in the world of alternative medicine, and is one of the reasons that their claims are bogus and don't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

We know for a fact that there are as many causes for disease as there are diseases! We also know that even with the same disease, one person can avoid it while another can't, even if they do the same things to prevent it. One person will contract it and another won't, even though they're both exposed. One person will recover from it, and another won't, even though they both received the same treatment.

If it were only people making these claims, and nobody believed them because that's just ludicrous that one thing can prevent or cure ALL disease, we could laugh it off. If alternative practitioners were all claiming that their treatments could be used in addition to science-based medicine instead of telling people to avoid medical doctors entirely, we could all shrug and say "whatever floats your boat."

What the article is in response to, though, is the rampant claims of universal cures and vilification of valid medical treatments that are, at best, keeping people from getting better or, at worst, killing them.

daveddd, all I can say in response to "the story about parents withholding treatment for their kids" because they were pursuing a more "natural" or "holistic" or whatever treatment is. . .which one are you talking about? Is it one of the ones that died already? Is it one of the ones with a cancer that has an incredibly high survival rate with chemo or radiation but a 100% death rate without it, or is it one of the ones with another treatable disease that will progress until it's lethal? There are so, so many, it's hard to know which one you're thinking of. :(

daveddd
11-30-13, 03:01 PM
Really, there's no shortage of claims made that there is "one true cause for all disease," which is what the article in the OP was talking about. Really, if you've been commenting here but haven't read the article, that's what it comes down to. It's saying that the problem is that alternative practices make claims that their method is the only one needed to prevent or cure all diseases. Some new groups have cropped up in which they all accept that one anothers' alternate practice is equally helpful, even when their philosophies contradict.

This idea that there is a single cause for disease, and that a single thing can prevent it or cure it is rampant in the world of alternative medicine, and is one of the reasons that their claims are bogus and don't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

We know for a fact that there are as many causes for disease as there are diseases! We also know that even with the same disease, one person can avoid it while another can't, even if they do the same things to prevent it. One person will contract it and another won't, even though they're both exposed. One person will recover from it, and another won't, even though they both received the same treatment.

If it were only people making these claims, and nobody believed them because that's just ludicrous that one thing can prevent or cure ALL disease, we could laugh it off. If alternative practitioners were all claiming that their treatments could be used in addition to science-based medicine instead of telling people to avoid medical doctors entirely, we could all shrug and say "whatever floats your boat."

What the article is in response to, though, is the rampant claims of universal cures and vilification of valid medical treatments that are, at best, keeping people from getting better or, at worst, killing them.

daveddd, all I can say in response to "the story about parents withholding treatment for their kids" because they were pursuing a more "natural" or "holistic" or whatever treatment is. . .which one are you talking about? Is it one of the ones that died already? Is it one of the ones with a cancer that has an incredibly high survival rate with chemo or radiation but a 100% death rate without it, or is it one of the ones with another treatable disease that will progress until it's lethal? There are so, so many, it's hard to know which one you're thinking of. :(

there is a couple one

then yes there is the missing kid who will die now

then i believe one set of parents let there kid die, got a slap on the wrist and now another one died

a lot of them seem to be in one specific area an hour or so away from me

SB_UK
11-30-13, 03:14 PM
The human body has the power to heal itself - we simply need to know how to use it to its fullest potential.

Fasting is a notable and almost universally avoided mechanism aiding our regeneration.

The information we need is about to come on-line eg

Fasting or caloric restriction for Healthy Aging (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556513001186)
October 2013 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0531556513001186)

BOTH and MORE.

-*-

We can all be healthy without paying ANYBODY any money whatsoever; health care is populated by monsters who prey on the sick.

Pain really hurts - and selling 'hope' of pain relief is a guaranteed earner.

SB_UK
11-30-13, 03:25 PM
Pain really hurts[1] Pain relief, muscular relaxation, anxiety alleviation via benzodiazepene operating through potentiation of GABA nt (wikiP/benzodiazepene).

[2] Fasting results in ketone body usage (no ref required).

[3] Ketone bodies operate to increase GABA-ergic transmission eg (http://evolutionarypsychiatry.blogspot.co.uk/2010/08/ketogenic-diets-and-bipolar-disorder-2.html).

-*-

Wot no pharmaceutical or alternative medicine pill ?

Effort, self discipline required; we have all we need to generate a healthy global population ... ... thanks to the humble epidemiologist with his/her trusty clipboard.

Lunacie
11-30-13, 03:38 PM
Really, there's no shortage of claims made that there is "one true cause for all disease," which is what the article in the OP was talking about. Really, if you've been commenting here but haven't read the article, that's what it comes down to. It's saying that the problem is that alternative practices make claims that their method is the only one needed to prevent or cure all diseases. Some new groups have cropped up in which they all accept that one anothers' alternate practice is equally helpful, even when their philosophies contradict.

This idea that there is a single cause for disease, and that a single thing can prevent it or cure it is rampant in the world of alternative medicine, and is one of the reasons that their claims are bogus and don't stand up to scientific scrutiny.

We know for a fact that there are as many causes for disease as there are diseases! We also know that even with the same disease, one person can avoid it while another can't, even if they do the same things to prevent it. One person will contract it and another won't, even though they're both exposed. One person will recover from it, and another won't, even though they both received the same treatment.

If it were only people making these claims, and nobody believed them because that's just ludicrous that one thing can prevent or cure ALL disease, we could laugh it off. If alternative practitioners were all claiming that their treatments could be used in addition to science-based medicine instead of telling people to avoid medical doctors entirely, we could all shrug and say "whatever floats your boat."

What the article is in response to, though, is the rampant claims of universal cures and vilification of valid medical treatments that are, at best, keeping people from getting better or, at worst, killing them.
daveddd, all I can say in response to "the story about parents withholding treatment for their kids" because they were pursuing a more "natural" or "holistic" or whatever treatment is. . .which one are you talking about? Is it one of the ones that died already? Is it one of the ones with a cancer that has an incredibly high survival rate with chemo or radiation but a 100% death rate without it, or is it one of the ones with another treatable disease that will progress until it's lethal? There are so, so many, it's hard to know which one you're thinking of. :(

I agree it's shameful when "claims of universal cures and vilification of valid
medical treatments" are made, but why is it so difficult to accept that some
of us have never encountered that attitude personally?

Thinking about the problem, I wonder if that attitude may be a backlash
against the traditional medical community's claims that alternative treatment
is nothing more than quackery?

That said, I know that not everyone in the medical community holds that view,
but I also know that not everyone in the alternative treatment community
makes such outrageous claims.

BellaVita
11-30-13, 03:55 PM
We can all be healthy without paying ANYBODY any money whatsoever; health care is populated by monsters who prey on the sick.

"We can all" is not so easy to come by.

What if someone suffers from a severe mental disorder and is so far dysregulated that they do not have the mental capacity to go about ways(some that you've described in previous posts) of becoming healthy?

What if one is paralyzed from the neck down with no caretaker?

What if, in either case, the individual has no caretaker to aid in their process to become healthy?

It's definitely *not* possible for all individuals to become healthy when they are in severely detrimental circumstances that do no allow for them to easily partake in healthy living.

Abi
11-30-13, 04:12 PM
What if one is paralyzed from the neck down with no caretaker?


They became paralysed because of stress.

When they are de-stressed, they will become un-paralysed.

If this doesn't work the chiropractor will fix them.

SB_UK
11-30-13, 04:14 PM
"We can all" is not so easy to come by.

What if someone suffers from a severe mental disorder and is so far dysregulated that they do not have the mental capacity to go about ways(some that you've described in previous posts) of becoming healthy?

What if one is paralyzed from the neck down with no caretaker?

What if, in either case, the individual has no caretaker to aid in their process to become healthy?

It's definitely *not* possible for all individuals to become healthy when they are in severely detrimental circumstances that do no allow for them to easily partake in healthy living.

We (the very vast majority) - perhaps very close to all
- but not in the state we're in.

When the damage is done - to all the people who're on the verge of smoking themselves into lung cancer
- little can be done

... the point is - spend all of the effort we're pouring into failing to fix
- into a mechanism which epidemiology shows will result in prevention.

-*-

We have all the information we need - over about a generation - to prevent the very vast majority of disease.

For many - it's just too late.

In some ways - what we've observed has been like a war.
People have been required to die until the global population wakes up to the futility of war.

We're trying to get our heads around information which we have in our hands - of a healthy lifestyle.

All of the disease we're suffering from - is meant to be taken as evidence that we have no choice other than to change our lives in such a way - that we don't court disease.

Eliminating money globally - is of key importance here.

It's the Western style disorder equivalent of war/peace.

BellaVita
11-30-13, 04:16 PM
They became paralysed because of stress.

When they are de-stressed, they will become un-paralysed.

If this doesn't work the chiropractor will fix them.

Thank you for explaining Abi.

:lol:

BellaVita
11-30-13, 04:18 PM
We (the very vast majority) - perhaps very close to all
- but not in the state we're in.

When the damage is done

... the point is - spend all of the effort we're pouring into failing to fix
- into a mechanism which epidemiology shows will result in prevention.

All of the preventive measures in the world don't stop every single disease from arising and taking hold of victims.

dvdnvwls
11-30-13, 05:18 PM
Cholera is caused by stress?
Rickets and scurvy are caused by stress?
Tetanus is caused by stress?

Amtram
11-30-13, 05:59 PM
And congenital deformities and genetic illnesses are caused by maternal stress. Don't forget that one.

Amtram
11-30-13, 06:13 PM
Thinking about the problem, I wonder if that attitude may be a backlash
against the traditional medical community's claims that alternative treatment
is nothing more than quackery?



No, I'm pretty certain that the backlash started with the alternative community's claims against the medical community. I understand that you're looking at different sources, Lunacie, but I've been following medical and scientific ones, and there's a term they use for the members of the medical community that really don't see a problem. They call them "shruggies," because they just shrug and don't see the harm.

That was the prevailing attitude for a very, very long time. Up until the point at which the alternative practitioners began trying to position themselves as actual alternatives to doctors for very serious conditions, and certain prolific bloggers and speakers and writers began flooding the internet with the idea that doctors want people to get sick and stay sick, so people should go to homeopaths and acupuncturists to treat some really serious diseases.

I really don't want to send any traffic to any of these sites, because they are horrible people, but if you find them and you see the traffic and the comments, you will see that there is a distressingly large number of CAM practitioners and adherents who spout the "one true cause of disease" trope, insist that their favored modality is the only solution, and demonize doctors and medicine as a whole.

And then you go visit sites written by doctors who get patients who've progressed to untreatable stages by the time they've lost faith in their alternative practitioners' promises; blogs by people who watched their loved ones die slowly and painfully by sticking to alternative practices for conditions that could have been successfully treated by medicine; news stories about parents being taken to court or jailed for refusing medication for their children in favor of alternatives that don't work, and you see that this is a real thing, and it's a bigger problem than we ever should have allowed it to become.

dvdnvwls
11-30-13, 07:54 PM
As far as I can tell, there has always been a "quack group" wanting to sell either a product or an ideology or both. Quacks prey on many traits of human nature - not just gullibility, but also desire for an ideal world, desire for there to be elegant solutions to major problems, fear of the unknown, anger at oppression or perceived oppression, greed, laziness, status-seeking, pride... on and on. And any "band-wagon" or "-ism" that comes along, some quacks will soon align themselves with it.

Quacks are not the only bad guys - far from it. But all quacks are bad.

daveddd
12-01-13, 12:52 AM
And congenital deformities and genetic illnesses are caused by maternal stress. Don't forget that one.


i dont think all of them are

but if the mother is stressed enough to drink or smoke crack during pregnancy that could be the case

i think alcohol exposure to fetuses are considered a stressor

Greyhound1
12-01-13, 01:24 AM
Apple founder Steve Jobs would probably still be alive today had he not fallen victim to the deception of alternative medicine.

daveddd
12-01-13, 01:26 AM
what is considered alternative in psychology

im curious

i dont get much into it

BellaVita
12-01-13, 01:39 AM
what is considered alternative in psychology

im curious

i dont get much into it

By psychology do you mean, like what do "alternatives" use to "treat" psychological/neurobiological disorders?

What do you mean?

daveddd
12-01-13, 01:43 AM
what would the people with issues with this stuff, consider a garbage alternative treatment

for psychological disorders

or what should we look out for?

Unmanagable
12-01-13, 01:58 AM
Alternative healing does have "quack groups" that purposely mislead and harm people for their benefit, not the benefit of the patient. They should damn well be held accountable and not be allowed to practice. I don't think anyone would argue with that.

These types market themselves loudly and proudly to reel people in. Many folks are way too used to responding to commercialism and attempt it because it sounds so good, "But wait!! There's more!!!!" (silly infomercial reference), often times out of desperation and perhaps without doing any homework prior to going.

From my life experiences, I see a mirror image of this on the flip side.

There is an equal level of "quack groups" within the medical and scientific fields who abuse their positions, deflect discussion of any topics outside of their expertise w/ an aggressive stance, and treat patients in a cold "assembly line", almost scripted way and typically prescribe medication only, with no supportive/educational info to accompany or requests for follow up, and send them on their way vs. on a "human level" let's genuinely try to get to the real issue and work together to see what's happening.

I think they should also be held accountable and not allowed to practice. These folks are not marketed loudly and proudly and many folks just assume the doctor knows best because they're a doctor and we've been taught to trust them with our lives. If something doesn't work, or we have a bad experience, we generally just move along to the next, then the next, and so on and so on.

Whichever route we choose to take nowadays requires diligent work and strong self-advocacy on our part to sift through to effective and meaningful quality care. Things are tough all over. One "quack group" isn't anymore at fault than the other when harm is done intentionally.

dvdnvwls
12-01-13, 03:37 AM
The quacks in the alternative fields are, in general, crafty predators. The quacks in real medicine are, in general, incompetent idiots. It's no good being treated by an incompetent idiot, but it's preferable to the other thing if those are the only choices. One sincerely hopes it wouldn't come down to that.

There are sincere, thoughtful, like-able practitioners of non-scientific disciplines. On my ex's recommendation, I went to a chiropractor who I liked as a person. He was intelligent and kind. But I soon stopped going; I realized there can be no sane way to trust a practitioner of a discipline that isn't valid in the first place, no matter how nice or smart the individual is.

Unmanagable
12-01-13, 04:22 AM
Speaking for myself, it gets really old after a while trying to share information within discussions regarding anything alternative when you're always made to feel like you're full of s*** and nothing you have to say regarding any of it is valid. (This is what I feel regardless if it was the intent.)

I always feel the need to speak up in defense of it because of experiencing significant benefits in better managing several health issues in many areas of my life. I don't deny that there is good and bad, and it's been a long, hard, painful road weeding out the bad in both fields. It still is and will continue to be.

Did you leave the chiro based soley on your assumed sanity, actual negative experiences with or ineffective treatments, or just on what you've read in scientific journals?

SB_UK
12-01-13, 05:44 AM
All of the preventive measures in the world don't stop every single disease from arising and taking hold of victims.

Can't provide stats - as a consequence of the removal of money/social hierarchy - over a couple of generations - we'll knock the vast majority of diseases over.

Now - wait until we see which diseases cannot be prevented - there ?? may ?? be one - I don't know ... ... and then concentrate all of the minds which're mow redundant (in med research) on working up preventative measures for that 1 disease.

Medical establishments are in process of collapsing - too much money is required by the standard health sector, to be fair - to a large part, caused by increased unhealthy lifespans.

I'm pretty sure that pretty much all of the Western-style disorder epidemics can be overcome, based on their close to absence on Athos.

Just a lifestyle of (di)stress which is giving rise to the diseases the pharmaceutical corporation considers profitable enough to work on.

The irony is that as one of the most profitable sectors (at least in the past) - economic inequality giving rise to (di)stress can be attributable to the pharmaceutical corporation sector - itself.

IE that the pharmaceutical sector's aggressive pursuit of money gives rise to the environmental factor (inequality) which gives rise to the disease which it is profiting from.

The pharmaceutical sector (along with its money-grabbing corporate friends) profits from disease - which it itself is a major contributary factor towards.

Bottom-line ... ... anybody who studies human biology should know that we're very, very complicated.

The logic of the pharmaceutical corporation is to throw some 'spanner' into an elegant clockwork mechanism (which is perhaps sticking a little) and hope that (and watch as it doesn't) get the mechanism working again.

Now - we may consider ourselves smart to have been able to identify a problem protein, and an inhibitory compound - but we're not smart - not at all; we're 'thick' to believe that this approach was ever applicable.

We're biochemically far too complicated to be modified in this way.

We need to keep the clockwork mechanism running smoothly (adequate oil) through lifestyle
- and NOT attempt to quicken the mechanism by throwing a spanner into the works.

The key observation (referenced previously) is that chronic (di)stress leads to oxidative stress/loss of inflammatory control.

This axis, where chronic (DI)stress is caused by economic inequality is all we need to understand to conquer disease.

Epidemiology (particularly of the lifestyle on Mount Athos) teaches us the importance of exercise, sun exposure, fresh predominantly vegan food, caloric restriction, fasting and meditation
- that is -
--- EFFORT ---

- and all the standard/alternative healthcare sector does is try and sell all of these natural procedures with some sorta' pill.

The most striking observation on Athos - is the close to absence of cancer and the incredible (healthy) age which the monks live till.

We're on the verge of 'getting' this message ... ... ... but people seem loathe to exercise self-discipline.

Self-discipline is required in one area predominantly - to curb greed by society (globally) voluntarily letting go of money.

It's not a big deal really - because money is due to collapse with population change anyway - so we might as well get on with it - and ditch money (economic inequality) now.

Imagine all of the terrible things human beings do - which'll be eliminated with the elimination of money.

We'll be able to wipe out all of the crimes of humanity against ourselves, the planet and the animal kingdom - in one swoop - if we eliminate the love of money/money/social hierarchy/economic inequality/social hierarchy ... ... which are (to be fair) simply synonyms.

SB_UK
12-01-13, 07:40 AM
So - just to summarise.

Pharmaceutical corporations are dead in the water - there're no new blockbusters in the offing.

Epidemiology has identified factors which result in optimal physiology.

In all cases - we know the molecular mechanisms which're at play in these lifestyle changes.

Money is about to collapse (taking down the pharmaceutical sector, alternative sector and entire health care machine (to be fair))

So what're we supposed to do ? All a bit of a no-brainer.

-*-

Equality as root to the (potentially) complete alleviation of human suffering.

Equality defined by the inequality defined in Marmot's Whitehall study - which gives rise to all-cause mortality.

Just above - referenced effects of chronic (DI)stress on infectious disease susceptibility, psychiatric disease and 'straight' physical disease.

-*-

Epidemiology has been working its magic for hundreds of years -
genetics, bioinformatics and pharmacology are simply flashes in the pan
- which arose, in earnest, only in the 80's.

Just a fad.

daveddd
12-01-13, 08:48 AM
The quacks in the alternative fields are, in general, crafty predators. The quacks in real medicine are, in general, incompetent idiots. It's no good being treated by an incompetent idiot, but it's preferable to the other thing if those are the only choices. One sincerely hopes it wouldn't come down to that.

There are sincere, thoughtful, like-able practitioners of non-scientific disciplines. On my ex's recommendation, I went to a chiropractor who I liked as a person. He was intelligent and kind. But I soon stopped going; I realized there can be no sane way to trust a practitioner of a discipline that isn't valid in the first place, no matter how nice or smart the individual is.

you did say in general, but it depends

there was a medical drug rehab that claimed it had a magic medical shot for addiction

it was like 15 grand for the shot, and it turns out the drugs were crap and it didnt work

it was big enough that howard stern was sponsoring on his show

amazing that it got through the cracks

SB_UK
12-01-13, 11:10 AM
You know - it's everywhere ... ... (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23682739)

Populations of many countries are becoming increasingly overweight and obese, driven largely by excessive calorie intake and reduced physical activity; greater body mass is accompanied by epidemic levels of comorbid metabolic diseases. At the same time, individuals are living longer. The combination of aging and the increased prevalence of metabolic disease is associated with increases in aging-related comorbid diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, cerebrovascular dementia, and sarcopenia. Here, correlative and causal links between diseases of overnutrition and diseases of aging and cognition are explored.
So stop eating !
Ahhh! But it's not that easy.

Master regulator of food intake (NPY) increased in response to stresswikiP/Neuropeptide Y

So - eliminate DIstress.
EXACTLY.

How ?
The only thing that life wants to do is live.
Evolutionary selection occurs to maximise fitness, likelihood of survival ... ...
The only thing that life needs to live is food/shelter (not much).
The only significant stress which people feel represents uncertainty in food/shelter provision.

Make food/shelter a basic human right g-l-o-b-a-l-l-y - without pre-condition
- and disease goes away.

-*-

So - we can do it without collapsing money -
well ... if you like.

But money will collapse afterwards
- whether we do it or not.

Why ?
Who's stupid enough to be a wage slave when they don't need the money.

OK - but on balance - isn't it better for money to collapse because nobody uses it, rather than at a point when people're completely dependent on it ?
Yes.

So - render money obsolete, because nobody needs it - rather than burn down Bernanke's shed (where he prints the stuff) ?
Maybe.

Anything else to add ?
Money's boring.

Don't bore the ADDer, you wouldn't like us when we're bored.

daveddd
12-01-13, 11:33 AM
lets call out all the scammers

what would dr amen fall under, with his $5000 brain scans that detect 5 different adhds

Amtram
12-01-13, 11:34 AM
Right now, there is a medical practitioner in Texas named Stanislaw Burzynski who, IMHO, is even worse than alternative medicine quacks who promise results they can't deliver because he is operating as a "legitimate MD" and telling clients that he is providing them a treatment that is in an FDA approved Phase III clinical trial. Yes, there are doctors and scientists out there pushing some really awful things (*cough, cough* Dr. Oz *ahem*) using their authority as medical degree-holders to push unproven and even dangerous treatment.

And while there are protocols in place for punishing them and retracting their medical licenses, they take an abominably long time and often require deaths or serious injuries to patients before anything happens.

Yes, yes, yes, it is a problem that exists, and it needs to be addressed much more swiftly and aggressively. But you know what they call the guy who graduated at the bottom of his class from Medical School? "Doctor."

However, also IMHO, we should dispense with the protection of the "quack Miranda Warning," and hold alternative practitioners to a higher standard as well. Don't allow them to claim that their practice does things that it has not been shown to do in properly-designed trials. Allow them to operate their practices, but do not let them claim that something is a medical treatment unless it has been shown to provide demonstrable medical benefit.

A lot of it on all sides comes down to misrepresentation. I do NOT think that consumers should "do their own research." How the heck are they supposed to do that and be able to sort out which claims are valid and which ones are not, without themselves having gotten a thorough education in biology or medicine? Google University graduates a lot of poorly-informed people. And Senior Citizens, as the biggest medical consumers of all, are the least well-equipped to find this stuff out for themselves - many of them couldn't even figure out how to search with Google, much less sort out evidence from hype on the internet.

Abi
12-01-13, 11:35 AM
lets call out all the scammers

what would dr amen fall under, with his $5000 brain scans that detect 5 different adhds

Six.

Half of which are not ADHD.

Amen is either a scammer or a complete idiot.

Amtram
12-01-13, 11:39 AM
what would the people with issues with this stuff, consider a garbage alternative treatment

for psychological disorders

or what should we look out for?

Scientologists.
Past life regression.
Groups that use psychoactive substances and "learn" from their hallucinogenic states.

Plus, there are psychologists, counselors, and social workers out there who aren't necessarily "alternative," but have pet ideas that they try to use to work out everything on all patients - you shared a good article about that on another thread, daveddd. Sometimes you can figure out that there's an agenda at work if they keep suggesting you try something that you've told them before you don't want to try, but you're there because you're emotionally vulnerable, so you might not necessarily pick up on it.

daveddd
12-01-13, 11:42 AM
bummer, i always wanted to go to one of those camps in the jungle and trip my brains out for medical purposes

Amtram
12-01-13, 12:00 PM
I always feel the need to speak up in defense of it because of experiencing significant benefits in better managing several health issues in many areas of my life. I don't deny that there is good and bad, and it's been a long, hard, painful road weeding out the bad in both fields. It still is and will continue to be.


Of course you would. That's human nature. As far as I'm concerned, "It worked for me" means that, and nothing more. Sample size of 1 is not good enough for evidence, but if you find that you benefit from something, for whatever reason it might be, and you want to continue using it and paying for it, that's certainly your prerogative.

My personal experience is one of the things that makes me suspicious of alternative practices. 15 years of Chiropractic kept me coming back for repeated treatments. 12 weeks of Physical Therapy, and my back hasn't given me trouble in the 8 years since. A friend who has serious mental issues (similar to mine, starting about the same time, so I could watch the immense difference in our progress trajectories) treated herself with a couple of alternative modalities, and I'm not going to be specific here, and ended up in the psych ward because she was actually planning her suicide.

None of the people I've seen who pursued alternative treatments because they had been scared away from medical treatments turned out well. That being said, I've seen people who adhere to medical treatments that are supported by scientific evidence, and add an alternative routine to "supplement" it in one way or another, and they do fine. I believe that is because it gives them a feeling of control that treating an illness takes away, it gets them out of the house and into a positive environment, sometimes it puts them in a group of people who feel good, and that rubs off, whatever.

The difference is, and what Dr. Hall is arguing, that there is no "one true cause of disease," and there is no "one treatment to prevent or cure all disease." Unscrupulous doctors tend to stick to a single disease (or type of disease - Burnzynski tends to focus on gliomas, but any old cancer will do) but unscrupulous alternative practitioners are more likely to make the single cause/prevention/cure claim.

That's the biggest thing we should all take away from this. Diseases all have different causes, and respond to different treatments. Medical science does rigorous testing to find causes and see if treatments work. Alternative practitioners do not. If anyone says that one single thing can treat or cure a laundry list of unrelated diseases, it's a lie, pure and simple.

Amtram
12-01-13, 12:03 PM
bummer, i always wanted to go to one of those camps in the jungle and trip my brains out for medical purposes

Go to YouTube and check out "ayahuasca." There are videos of people having hallucinations as a group. I think after watching that, your enthusiasm may wane a bit. :lol:

SB_UK
12-01-13, 02:23 PM
It'd be nice to know if any of healthcare beyond the term 'love thy neighbour' is necessary.

BellaVita
12-01-13, 02:43 PM
It'd be nice to know if any of healthcare beyond the term 'love thy neighbour' is necessary.

Well, that'd definitely help to solve alot of things, in my opinion.(the way people approach things, treat each other.)

But not everyone is ever going to be morally inclined that way.

To err is to human.

Healthcare beyond that term('LTN') is needed no doubt. That term has several different "meanings" and interpretations.

And no one is perfect enough to live up to it. So that's where things get messy.

Sorry, rambling....

My point:

Some order and structure and a health care system/environment, with or without 'loving thy neighbor' is needed in order for society to function and deal with medical illness on all levels.

BellaVita
12-01-13, 02:47 PM
The difference is, and what Dr. Hall is arguing, that there is no "one true cause of disease," and there is no "one treatment to prevent or cure all disease." Unscrupulous doctors tend to stick to a single disease (or type of disease - Burnzynski tends to focus on gliomas, but any old cancer will do) but unscrupulous alternative practitioners are more likely to make the single cause/prevention/cure claim.

This.

(Quoted for significance)

fracturedstory
12-02-13, 12:53 AM
im still curious about these chemical imbalances that are spoken about as fact

i havent seen them

They're microscopic ;)

I don't think it's so much that neuro chemical imbalances are a cause but there is an underlying cause to neurochemical imbalances that cause the symptoms of mental illness.

dvdnvwls
12-02-13, 01:09 AM
It'd be nice to know if any of healthcare beyond the term 'love thy neighbour' is necessary.
Is clostridium tetani my neighbour, or not? If he isn't, will loving my other neighbours cure tetanus?

SB_UK
12-02-13, 08:01 AM
Well, that'd definitely help to solve alot of things, in my opinion.(the way people approach things, treat each other.)

But not everyone is ever going to be morally inclined that way.

To err is to human.

Healthcare beyond that term('LTN') is needed no doubt. That term has several different "meanings" and interpretations.

And no one is perfect enough to live up to it. So that's where things get messy.

Sorry, rambling....

My point:

Some order and structure and a health care system/environment, with or without 'loving thy neighbor' is needed in order for society to function and deal with medical illness on all levels.

That's it.
The question is what kinda' healthcare would we need if we lived in a properly human environment ?

We can answer that question.

On Mount Athos, there is a doctor - but on the basis of some articles and 1 video on Athos - it is stated that the doctor is rarely (if at all??) consulted.

So - if anybody's interested in a very specific answer to the question - it can be obtained by simply sending an email to Athos.

I'm not going to though, because I've seen enough (the articles/videos) to be convinced that what I've seen thus far (ie NO alternative and NO standard healthcare provision on Athos) - is enough evidence for me.

Wouldn't mind the complete breakdown if somebody's got the knowhow to get a response.

Bottom line, though for me
- is simply STRESS.

The stress level is so pervasive - that nobody can see that it exists.

To identify it requires some very clever thinking, because control populations are (generally) confounded.

You need a population outside of the Western mode of living (money) and with all of the basic essentials defined by epidemiology ie clean water, clean food, handled waste, appropriate shelter ... ...

These populations are incredibly rare to find.

There're several without money - but tribal communities presumably have their own issues (food availability, shelter availability) which confounds their use.

SB_UK
12-02-13, 08:09 AM
ps Thanks for the info on these chaps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventist_Health_Studies

Never heard of 'em
- and they certainly do give the exact same basic pattern which I'm describing
- but they're going to be potentially tremendously understating the effects of lifestyle change.

They too are confounded if they need money to survive.



On average Adventist men live 7.3 years longer and Adventist women live 4.4 years longer than other Californians.
Five simple health behaviors promoted by the Seventh-day Adventist Church for more than 100 years (not smoking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking), eating a plant based diet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vegetarianism), eating nuts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nut_%28fruit%29) several times per week, regular exercise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_exercise) and maintaining normal body weight (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_weight)) increase life span up to 10 years.

We've described all of these previously - but we need more - we need absence of social hierarchy/absence of money as requirement for survival also.

It's the only reasonable conclusion which pops out of Wilkinson's 'why equal societies do better' and Marmot's 'Whitehall Study'.

We're not designed to be hierarchical - where higher in the hierarchy compromises survival of those lower in the hierarchy.
We can have a flat structure of specialists - just not a hierarchical structure of 'power'.

The study (above) cannot generate the complete conclusion I'm after - because the Adventists are confounded by life in a monetary based system.

People here don't like it that I use Athos epidemiology - but I have little choice
- any 'clean' population without money/social hierarchy will do.

SB_UK
12-02-13, 08:31 AM
Anyway - what's the proper solution to the problem posed in this thread ?

If there's a potential solution to a problem - a wholly objective body should test the claims.

Nobody should waste their time with an opinion - just do the double blind experiment and see what the results show.

That's all really.

But, at least in the frame of context of 'cure' - prevention wipes out the need.

dvdnvwls
12-02-13, 08:39 AM
I live in a country where stress regarding mere survival against the elements is not such a distant memory. I don't think our petty modern urban "stresses" could be having anywhere near the effect that was felt by my rural great-grandparents. A simple lack of money, or a political complaint about a perception of unfair treatment (from a person with an entitled attitude who's rich enough to use a computer and spend time online), is peanuts compared to knowing you'll die unless you can get to a doctor, and the doctor is normally 3 days' travel, but it's probably too cold to survive outdoors for 3 days, so you guess you'll probably die. My great-grandparents had no modern illusions about not needing doctors - though I'm sure they didn't go to the doctor as often or for as many things as most of us do today. We modern urban people have such extensive and specialised networks of support that we might lose our appreciation of how important medical care can be.

Mount Athos is not a human population, it's a (very old-fashioned) men's retreat. No women, no children, no births, not many visitors bringing infectious diseases... A men's retreat not making much use of a doctor is not a surprise or even an interesting comment.

Amtram
12-02-13, 12:23 PM
Yeah, "stress is the cause of all disease" fits the category quite neatly. Especially if you don't narrow down or categorize "stress."

Having family is stressful, even if you have the most wonderful family in the world. Starting a new family, adding a child to it, is incredibly stressful. When you're a woman, you worry about how the baby is developing during the pregnancy, and how every little thing you do might affect the baby, and how you and your spouse are going to cope with the changes in your relationship, and so on. Your spouse worries because there are things that are changing about you besides just the shape of your body, and there are so many things that could go wrong not only with the baby, but with you. He worries about losing you to some complication with the pregnancy or during birth. He worries about losing you and the baby. He worries about losing the baby. He worries about what he will do if he loses you but the baby lives and he has to care for it alone!

Then the baby comes and everything becomes even more stressful. It's totally dependent, and very demanding. Who's supposed to take care of what? Whose turn is it to take care of this demand? What does this cry mean? Is it something we need to do something about? Is the baby sick? Is the baby OK? How long are we going to be able to survive on this little sleep? Am I a horrible person for feeling angry/resentful/hateful towards my own child right now because I've had to sacrifice so much for him and I'm too darned tired to deal with this right now?

Then the baby grows. Is he growing enough or too little? Is he learning things and developing normally from a mental perspective? Am I stifling his independence by being too attached, or am I starving him emotionally by giving him too much time alone? Am I missing signs that he has some problems? Can I keep him safe from getting hurt or eating something that will make him sick if I take my eyes off him for a moment? If he refuses to eat anything but two different foods, will he get enough nutrition to develop properly?

I mean, that's just the beginning. And that's just one baby! And that baby could be perfectly normal, and you and your spouse could be doing everything right, and you could have family and friends who love helping out and respect your childrearing preferences and your privacy, and you're still stressed because you have a baby!!

If this kind of stress caused disease, our entire species would have died out by now. Having family is stressful, period. (Again, even if you all like each other. Nothing is ever perfect all the time.)

But isolating yourself from everyone who might at some point need you to care for them, while it might reduce stress for a small number of individuals, would end the species as well. No family, no births, no more people. In a way, I suppose you could say that would end all human disease, but it's rather disingenuous to do so by ending all humans.

SB_UK
12-04-13, 06:39 AM
Yes - drugs're bad uhuh! in all situations - because they're simply hiding underlying damage.

The fundamental problem with medication is that it's treating the symptoms.

You shouldn't ever treat the symptoms - but should attempt to discover the root cause.

Treating the symptoms - in effect - and across the board - prevents change - because people're able to continue with some poor behaviour, knowing that the healthcare industry will leap into protect 'em.

Best example - dentistry.
We know how to prevent cavities from forming.
But dentistry prevents the need for prevention.

-*-

At it's heart - medicine is divided into 2 warring fractions.

Preventative and Curative medicine.

Where ALL diseases (premature Western-style disorders) can be prevented.

Abi
12-04-13, 07:57 AM
Moderator Note:

This thread is a debate about the relative merits/demerits of alternative medicine.

It is not about the aetiology of illness, be it stress or other.

Further derailment will result in the issuing of formal warnings and/or infractions.

Carry on :)

Kunga Dorji
12-07-13, 11:04 AM
Alternative practitioners constantly claim that conventional medicine treats only symptoms while they treat underlying causes. They’ve got it backwards.

Chiropractors, homeopaths, naturopaths, acupuncturists, and other alternative medicine practitioners constantly criticize conventional medicine for “only treating the symptoms,” while alternative medicine allegedly treats “the underlying causes” of disease.

Nope. Not true. Exactly backwards. Think about it: When you go to a doctor with a fever, does he just treat the symptom? No, he tries to figure out what’s causing the fever. If it’s pneumonia, he identifies which microbe is responsible and gives you the right drugs to treat that particular infection. If you have abdominal pain, does the doctor just give you narcotics to treat the symptom of pain? No, he tries to figure out what’s causing the pain. If he determines you have acute appendicitis, he operates to remove your appendix.

Harriet Hall
Skeptical Inquirer Volume 34.1, January / February 2010

Read more... (http://www.csicop.org/si/show/one_true_cause_of_all_disease/)

Abi- As a Medical practitioner, I am well aware that we are great at treating the underlying cause when we have a hard diagnosis.
Fractured neck of femur with no underlying boney pathology-- treatment is cut and dried.

However- when it comes to syndromes like "metabolic syndrome", fibromyalgia, and ALL DSM diagnoses including ADHD- all we really know how to do is treat symptoms.

Sometimes this is enough-- by relieving the organism of enough symptoms we create a space where the body can heal. Sometimes it dos not work.

Harriet Hall, though, is a polemicist.
She has a very fixed view and often lapses into pseudo skepticism.

Kunga Dorji
12-07-13, 11:19 AM
I would further add,though, that the division of medicine into alternative and mainstream is rather passe.

Much of mainstream allopathic medicine remains unproven.
Many new treatments flourish for a few years until the "after marketing studies" roll in.
[Ie Vioxx (rofecoxib) as an antiinflammatory- found to have caused over 25,000 heart attacks by the time the "after marketing studies" came in- and then we found that the FDA's own scientists had recommended against the drug being released on the market - only to be overruled by the head of the FDA- a politcal appointee].

When we look at a treatment, we have to consider known harms and benefits.
Most so called "alternative treatments" have risk rates 2-3 orders of magnitude less than mainstream medical treatments.

In fact it is possible to pursue "Integrative Medicine" in a real and meaningful way nowadays-- but that needs educated ad forthright consumers who will not simply bow down and take instructions from the likes of Harriet and her ideological cronies.

Look closely at the work of such outstanding individuals as Dr Mark Hyman and Dr Daniel Amen, and you will see real dedication to patient empowerment and to minimising the cost of treatment (for every patient seen through the expensive Amen Cliics there are probably 10 who pick up on the free information on his blog).

We do not have to live in an "either- or" universe, nor do we need to inhabit the "doctor knows best" world of Harriet Hall.

Uncertainty is everywhere- we have to learn that there is no safety, no matter who we choose as a guru.

(Swami Harriet-- now that just cracks me up).

Amtram
12-07-13, 11:54 AM
Seeing "Dr. Daniel Amen" and "minimalising the cost of treatment" in the same sentence is stressing my irony meter. And Mark Hyman is another profiteer who professes exactly the approach that Dr. Hall is calling out - that one single thing (I believe he's enamoured of gut flora lately) is "the one true cause of all disease."

And this is the problem that Dr. Hall was focusing on in the OP article. Deciding that there's "one true cause of all disease," then working backwards from there to come up with a narrative that explains how your treatment of choice addresses that singular cause and therefore can cure or prevent everything in one fell swoop is one of the biggest failures of alternative medicine. It starts with a false assumption, which will inevitably lead to an incorrect conclusion.

Kunga Dorji
12-07-13, 10:58 PM
Seeing "Dr. Daniel Amen" and "minimalising the cost of treatment" in the same sentence is stressing my irony meter. And Mark Hyman is another profiteer who professes exactly the approach that Dr. Hall is calling out - that one single thing (I believe he's enamoured of gut flora lately) is "the one true cause of all disease."

And this is the problem that Dr. Hall was focusing on in the OP article. Deciding that there's "one true cause of all disease," then working backwards from there to come up with a narrative that explains how your treatment of choice addresses that singular cause and therefore can cure or prevent everything in one fell swoop is one of the biggest failures of alternative medicine. It starts with a false assumption, which will inevitably lead to an incorrect conclusion.

Firstly- re Daniel Amen-- many patients take away enough information from his website and books to self manage very cheaply.

Going to an Amen clinic is a different matter- but he comments that he sees many people who have previously failed with 4-5 other psychiatrists and have wasted huge amounts of money and lost opportunities before getting worthwhile treatment. That is a fair call.

Secondly, Mark Hyman most certainly does not believe in "one single thing" being the cause of all disease.

I get both of their newsletters, and am continually impressed by the breadth and scope of their knowledge.

Again it is a matter of us all learning to inspect these things ourselves and make our own decisions.

What I am suggesting is that we all step out of the role of passive consumers of medical paternalism (and Harriet Hall is a vigorous defender of that paradigm) and learn to look at evidence for ourselves and make our own decisions.

There is no real value to be had in listening to an authority who gives you his/her half baked and often prejudiced view of a situation when you could be going to the source material and assessing it for yourself.

IF Harriet Hall has been saying that Mark Hyman is saying that abnormal gut flora is the "one cause" of all disease- she really cannot have been paying attention.

However, if you do want some good data on gut flora:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322313004083

Psychobiotics: A Novel Class of Psychotropic
Timothy G. Dinan, Catherine Stanton, John F Cryan


Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre, University College Cork and Teagasc Moorepark, Cork, Ireland

Referred to by

Philip W.J. Burnet, Philip J. Cowen
Psychobiotics Highlight the Pathways to Happiness (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006322313007282)
Biological Psychiatry, Volume 74, Issue 10, 15 November 2013, Pages 708-709



Here, we define a psychobiotic as a live organism that, when ingested in adequate amounts, produces a health benefit in patients suffering from psychiatric illness. As a class of probiotic, these bacteria are capable of producing and delivering neuroactive substances such as gamma-aminobutyric acid and serotonin, which act on the brain-gut axis. Preclinical evaluation in rodents suggests that certain psychobiotics possess antidepressant or anxiolytic activity. Effects may be mediated via the vagus nerve, spinal cord, or neuroendocrine systems. So far, psychobiotics have been most extensively studied in a liaison psychiatric setting in patients with irritable bowel syndrome, where positive benefits have been reported for a number of organisms including Bifidobacterium infantis. Evidence is emerging of benefits in alleviating symptoms of depression and in chronic fatigue syndrome. Such benefits may be related to the anti-inflammatory actions of certain psychobiotics and a capacity to reduce hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis activity. Results from large scale placebo-controlled studies are awaited.


and part of an interview with Prof Dinan from Medscape:
[/quote]
Probiotics may offer an alternative treatment option for depression and other psychiatric disorders, new research suggests.
Investigators reviewed studies that examined the effect of "psychobiotics," live organisms that when ingested may produce health benefits in patients suffering from mental illness.
Several preclinical studies showed a link between specific probiotics and beneficial behavioral effects. These included one in which rats with depressive behaviors resulting from maternal separation displayed normalized behavior and an improved immune response after ingesting the Bifidobacterium infantis probiotic.
"Increasingly, patients are reluctant to take antidepressants, and psychobiotics may become an alternative," Ted Dinan, MD, PhD, professor of psychiatry and from the Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre at University College Cork in Ireland, told Medscape Medical News.
Dr. Dinan noted that there are approximately 1 to 2 kg of bacteria in the adult gut that are capable of producing hundreds of essential chemicals. And although healthy aging is associated with a diverse range of these organisms, individuals who age in an unhealthy manner have a much less diverse range of bacteria.
"Our preclinical studies suggest that depression is also associated with an alteration in the microbiota. Psychobiotics are good bacteria that have the potential to increase microbial diversity and treat the symptoms of depression," he said.
[/quote]


Please recall that Medscape is an accredited provider of Continuing Medical Education to Medical Practitioners in the USA.


It is also worth noting that the issue of bowel flora causing illness has been known to the Russian Medical Professaion for 30-40 years.
9as an aside one of my colleagues comes from Russia, and he commented that the "Iron Curtain" had produced the unexpected bonus that Medical Science in Russia developed diversity from mainstream Western scientific thought, simply because of the isolation.

Amtram
12-08-13, 02:42 PM
No, actually it was other scientists, several of them, pointing out Hyman's position, taking quotes directly from his newsletter, too.

And the gut flora research is far from conclusive. It's a newly opened area of research that may have potential if some of the results can be replicated in patients without irritable bowel syndrome.

Please do not assume I get all my information from a single source, or that I hold anyone in god-like regard. It just so happens that in this article, Harriet Hall was the one expressing what is well-known and accepted by the scientific community.