Alternative Medicine

[Aorist]

Alternative Medicine is, according to the Wikipedia article on the topic (here), "encompasses any healing practice that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine". This does not include, for example, drugs in development by scientists that ought to work by scientific theories, but does include acupuncture, homeopathy, biofeedback, naturopathy, herbal medicine and the like.

The thing is, millions of people are using a variety of treatments that have almost no effect beyond the placebo effect. There are a limited number of ones that work beyond that - I've heard about acupuncture being able to stimulate the nervous system in some way, but by and large the entire realm of alternative medicine is pseudoscience at best, dangerous at worst.

I, of course, am against the entire concept - I believe that things should be tested before they are used on a person.

There are a variety of deaths and injuries resulting from relying upon alternative medicine (SOURCE).

I was wondering if there are any proponents of Alternative Medicine on here. I was further wondering if I could engage them in argumentation about the validity of using alternative medicine at all.

 

[Maniclysane]

I don't think alternative medicine should be marketed or sold. People could be ill, and buy into a medicine that has not been proven to work, possibly because it's cheaper or marketed differently.

Medicine that is not marketed, I guess would be fine. People could make their own formula, like red bull and peptobismal, for whatever.

 

[Vorguen]

In ancient China people would hardly get sick, and those who did would be treated with herbal infusions and different mixtures of teas and boiled stews. China has been enjoying these mixtures since the time of around 2,000 B.C.


The story (or maybe legend) goes that:

"Tea drinking originates from China several thousand years ago and the story goes that a few leaves of the Camellia plant accidentally fell into some boiling water. The resulting infusion was then drunk by the Chinese Emperor Shen Nung who found it highly palatable, and the concept of tea drinking was born"

http://www.articlesbase.com/home-and-family-articles/where-did-tea-originate-447727.html



There are many health benefits to alternative medicine and herbal medicine as well. People should be smart enough to realize that these methods may not be the most effective, but they can be practical and used to enhance medicine already taken, and they should just let their doctor know of what they want to try and whether or not it would potentially benefit them and that it won't affect the current treatment. Alternative medicine can be used as a complement, not a replacement of current medicine.








sources:

www.answers.com (for definitions)

http://www.articlesbase.com/home-and-family-articles/where-did-tea-originate-447727.html

http://www.blutea.com/q146901.html

 

[~ Gheb ~]

You can't start a discussion like that.

1.) This is not a topic everybody's familiar with. Even if it's long you have to explain this subject closer.
2.) You have to take a side. You want to start a debate? Then write your opinion too.
3.) The OP has no content whatsoever. If you want responses you should actually make points.

Basically: Don't throw out debates on random. Introduce us to the topic you want to discuss by explaining the subject itself with quotes/links/whatever, come to the point/main question of the discussion and then tell us what you think about it. That way we can start a debate about alternative medicine but if you do it like that there isn't really anything to discuss.

 

[Vorguen]

You can't start a discussion like that.

1.) This is not a topic everybody's familiar with. Even if it's long you have to explain this subject closer.
2.) You have to take a side. You want to start a debate? Then write your opinion too.
3.) The OP has no content whatsoever. If you want responses you should actually make points.

Basically: Don't throw out debates on random. Introduce us to the topic you want to discuss by explaining the subject itself with quotes/links/whatever, come to the point/main question of the discussion and then tell us what you think about it. That way we can start a debate about alternative medicine but if you do it like that there isn't really anything to discuss.

I was thinking of telling someone who wants to start a debate about something but are either too shy (lol) or don't know enough about the topic to discuss it around with DH people through PM's or VM's and see if someone else is interested in getting it started.

Could be a nice alternative, or a thread where people discuss possible topics and find out what can get started, first post can be updated to include the new ideas to start a debate on.

If it's a good idea I don't mind doing that, just someone (anyone) who has been here on the DH long enough to know it's kinks send me a visitor message.


Off-topic rant concluded.

 

[AltF4]

If by "alternative medicine" you mean pseudoscientific nonsense that has been proven to have no effect, then no. It should not be allowed.

But if by "alternative medicine" you mean experimental medicine that is being tested and has a reasonable expectation of producing results, then sure. Why not?

I don't see a debate here.

 

[:mad:]

This... doesn't sound like a real Aorist topic. Usually, he puts up some article that argues his point.
I thought that might give us some answers. Not sure about this topic.

I say yes.

 

[Darxmarth23]

I believe that medicine should be tested much faster, and so that we can get more results faster, and so in turn, there wouldn't be a need for alternate medicine.

 

[cman]

I believe that medicine should be tested much faster, and so that we can get more results faster, and so in turn, there wouldn't be a need for alternate medicine.

You can't test the long term effects of something any faster. It's not possible. We could open up drugs for commercial sale before the long term effects were known, but i'm pretty sure most would object to taking something that might cause cancer in 5 years.

They appealing thing about some alternative medicines is the cost and lack of chemicals. For example, should acupuncture actually turn out to work well in preventing pain, it would be magnitudes less expensive than administering drugs for anethesia that may be used during surgery.

I think they should be used if they are proven to work. However, unfortunately, most big drugs companies would object to testing out various methods because it would reduce their total sales.

 

[Aorist]

Right, I assumed that people on the internet would actually know about what alternative medicine is. I will both write out a proper intro here and edit it into the OP.

Alternative Medicine is, according to the Wikipedia article on the topic (here), "encompasses any healing practice that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine". This does not include, for example, drugs in development by scientists that ought to work by scientific theories, but does include acupuncture, homeopathy, biofeedback, naturopathy, herbal medicine and the like.

The thing is, millions of people are using a variety of treatments that have almost no effect beyond the placebo effect. There are a limited number of ones that work beyond that - I've heard about acupuncture being able to stimulate the nervous system in some way, but by and large the entire realm of alternative medicine is pseudoscience at best, dangerous at worst.

I, of course, am against the entire concept - I believe that things should be tested before they are used on a person.

There are a variety of deaths and injuries resulting from relying upon alternative medicine (SOURCE).

I was wondering if there are any proponents of Alternative Medicine on here. I was further wondering if I could engage them in argumentation about the validity of using alternative medicine at all.

 

[aeghrur]

I, personally, believe Alternative Medicine has some validity. I suppose this is due to my ethnic background, stories I've heard, etc since I'm Chinese. Now, I do agree that most of the times, it is most likely not as effective as modern Western medicine, having been a recipient of both.
However, I do believe there are certain beneficial effects of herbal medicine.
For example, drinking water with ginger roots helps fight against the flu.
http://www.herbal-supplements-guide.com/benefits-of-ginger-root.html

Ginger also has other beneficial effects to the body as well.
http://www.organicfacts.net/organic...-oils/health-benefits-of-ginger-root-oil.html

Furthermore, there is some research that supports certain other herbs could be beneficial to the body, boosting immune systems, and curing diseases. http://www.drshen.com/chineseherbsresearch.html
As such, I don't believe that all alternative medicines should be outlawed.

Now, of course, as with any medicine and drug, there will be side effects. As such, when used abusively or wrong, alternative medicine will hurt people. Is this not the case from medicine such as morphine and vikoden? Of course it will be the same for alternative medicine too. If you give someone a prescription and it's for someone 3x their body weight, won't it hurt them? Now, I will take a leap and suppose that your source points to this site http://www.whatstheharm.net/alternativemedicine.html as the topic is upon alternative medicine.

1. Gerson Therapy case - Complete overdose. 13 fruit juices, coffee, and vitamin injections? O_O No wonder she died. But... this doesn't mean less fruit juicies, coffee, and (possible) vitamin injections won't work, it just means that amount is wayyyyyyyyy too much, lol.

2. Genitals AIDS cure - Yeah, the uneducated people get ripped off. This just means they were stupid enough to believe that some crazy cure would actually work. I mean, really, this isn't alternative medicine to blame, it's the guy's common sense. Of course outrageous things won't work.

3. Alternative cures for breast cancer - Pesticide Removal Tinctures??? PESTICIDE REMOVAL? Okay, you know how even bug killing sprays have the "don't get onto skin" thing? yeah, I think that kind of applies. Common sense, don't put Pesticides on your skin. O_O Also, this is written from a friend's perspective without full knowledge. So, while this case did happen, there are many things that are unknown here.

4. Self Medicated Pills - Okay, title screams of abuse and overdosage, lol. Furthermore, if they did any research upon buying the pills (which you should, since it's a drug isn't it? Common sense) they would've realized it's not an "alternative medicine," it was a toxic drug.

5. Energy Medicine - I admit, this is a case where it really was the alternative medicine's fault. Of course, you have fraud schemes, things that don't work, medicines that cause death, etc.

Oh, and I would like to ask, do you consider Marijuana a type of Alternative Medicine?

 

[pyrotek7x7]

I, of course, am against the entire concept - I believe that things should be tested before they are used on a person.

That statement is very flawed. It has to be tested on a person to see what the effects on people may be.

You can test on monkeys and possibly get similar effects, but not always the same (and then you get animal rights activists complaining).

 

[Aorist]

That statement is very flawed. It has to be tested on a person to see what the effects on people may be.

You can test on monkeys and possibly get similar effects, but not always the same (and then you get animal rights activists complaining).

Yeah, whoops. I meant that things ought to be tested properly before they are marketed. My bad.

 

[illinialex24]

I think traditional medicine should be allowed, because they are finding uses medically for some of the stuff in plants and the like.

However, stuff like homeopathy really shouldn't be allowed because its just a pathetic way of saying fake medicine that goes against every rule known to man.

 

[Pr0phetic]

Alternative medicines seem like a quick fix for the desperate, and a quick death aswell. This reminds me of that treatment to cure headaches, where they would bore a huge hole in your skull. Sadly this is still practiced today... And just looking at the stuff aeghrur posted made me shake my head...

 

[GoldShadow]

I'm with most of you on this one.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) absolutely should not be touted as a replacement for real medicine.

I, personally, believe Alternative Medicine has some validity. I suppose this is due to my ethnic background, stories I've heard, etc since I'm Chinese. Now, I do agree that most of the times, it is most likely not as effective as modern Western medicine, having been a recipient of both.
However, I do believe there are certain beneficial effects of herbal medicine.
For example, drinking water with ginger roots helps fight against the flu.
http://www.herbal-supplements-guide.com/benefits-of-ginger-root.html

Ginger also has other beneficial effects to the body as well.
http://www.organicfacts.net/organic...-oils/health-benefits-of-ginger-root-oil.html

Furthermore, there is some research that supports certain other herbs could be beneficial to the body, boosting immune systems, and curing diseases. http://www.drshen.com/chineseherbsresearch.html
As such, I don't believe that all alternative medicines should be outlawed.

Now, of course, as with any medicine and drug, there will be side effects. As such, when used abusively or wrong, alternative medicine will hurt people. Is this not the case from medicine such as morphine and vikoden? Of course it will be the same for alternative medicine too. If you give someone a prescription and it's for someone 3x their body weight, won't it hurt them? Now, I will take a leap and suppose that your source points to this site http://www.whatstheharm.net/alternativemedicine.html as the topic is upon alternative medicine.

I don't think anybody would say (at least I wouldn't) that alternative medicine as a whole is a bunch of nonsense.

After all, virtually all of the drugs and compounds found in our medication are derived originally from plant, herbal or natural sources.

The difference is that with medication, we have isolated and extracted the active ingredient, created better forms of it, tested it to determine all side effects, quantified the benefits and detriments, and have thoroughly studied it before putting it out on the market. When you buy a bottle of tylenol, you know exactly how much acetaminophen you're getting in each pill; doctors and pharmacists know exactly how it interacts with other drugs, they know what effects everything in the pill has on your organs and body, they know how much you need to take for it to be effective and how much constitutes an overdose.

When you buy an herbal supplement or take some kind of alternative medicine, you don't know exactly what you're getting. It's essentially a gamble. We don't know whether the brand you're taking even has any active ingredient, we don't know what inactive ingredients are present, we don't know exactly what form they are present in, we don't know how much of each ingredient is present and therefore cannot ascertain a proper dose or overdose level; its effects have not been extensively tested and quantified, nor have all its drug interactions been studied.


That's the difference. "Western" medicine is regulated and must go through the scientific method before it is marketed; complementary and alternative medicine is not.


I'm open to new treatments derived from alternative medicine, but only if the practitioners and propagators of that medicine are willing to subject their therapy to rigorous testing, treatment, quality assurance and the scientific method. If they can scientifically show that it works, I'm all for it.

But until then, I will not accept "traditional" or "alternative" medicine due to its inherent dangers and uncertainties (and in many cases, uselessness), and neither should anyone else.

 

[aeghrur]

And just looking at the stuff aeghrur posted made me shake my head...

^^^ what is this i don't even.
Lol, but yeah... what do you mean? Do you mean what I posted is idiotic or do you mean the 5 examples I listed truly show the stupidity of some people?

I'm with most of you on this one.

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) absolutely should not be touted as a replacement for real medicine.

No, it shouldn't be a replacement, but it can be used for things like helping strengthen immune systems, work against a cold, or something of the like. There are some alternative medicines out there that do help these things. =/

I don't think anybody would say (at least I wouldn't) that alternative medicine as a whole is a bunch of nonsense.

Iunno, maybe I read it wrong, but I do thing Aortist is against all of it. =/ I'm certainly not for all of it, but I do believe some of ti should be allowed.

After all, virtually all of the drugs and compounds found in our medication are derived originally from plant, herbal or natural sources.

The difference is that with medication, we have isolated and extracted the active ingredient, created better forms of it, tested it to determine all side effects, quantified the benefits and detriments, and have thoroughly studied it before putting it out on the market.

But isolating and extracting basically creates a more potent form of it, which can be bad at times. And I do believe some alternative medicines have been tested throughout history of their side effects, and with that comes the benefits and detriments. Some have been studied thoroughly too, like most herbs used in alternative medicine have been studied quite thoroughly in Ancient China. Although they didn't have the type of technology as today, they were studied, recorded the benefits, detriments, dosage amounts. etc. Also, some simply cannot be tested due to the government. An example would be marijuana, as most believe it can have medicinal value, but it has not been studied thoroughly because of its classification as an illegal substance.

When you buy a bottle of tylenol, you know exactly how much acetaminophen you're getting in each pill; doctors and pharmacists know exactly how it interacts with other drugs, they know what effects everything in the pill has on your organs and body, they know how much you need to take for it to be effective and how much constitutes an overdose.

True, but most consumers still don't. =/ And Iirc, tylenol isn't exactly over the counter. It can harm idiots too, lol.

When you buy an herbal supplement or take some kind of alternative medicine, you don't know exactly what you're getting. It's essentially a gamble. We don't know whether the brand you're taking even has any active ingredient, we don't know what inactive ingredients are present, we don't know exactly what form they are present in, we don't know how much of each ingredient is present and therefore cannot ascertain a proper dose or overdose level;

I believe that's a generalization for some, not all. Some alternative medicines are very simple things such as drinking soup of ______ and it's quite easy to know what's active, inactive, and things just by a little research. =/

its effects have not been extensively tested and quantified, nor have all its drug interactions been studied.

Again, for some herbs, these have been studied throughout history. Maybe not as thoroughly as today, but the major ones should be known. On the other hand, you are correct that some have not been studied and before they're put in the market, they should be.

That's the difference. "Western" medicine is regulated and must go through the scientific method before it is marketed; complementary and alternative medicine is not.

But often times, they have gone through the scientific method of problem, hypothesis, data, results, conclusion. =/ There are many books upon herbal/alternative medicine.

I'm open to new treatments derived from alternative medicine, but only if the practitioners and propagators of that medicine are willing to subject their therapy to rigorous testing, treatment, quality assurance and the scientific method. If they can scientifically show that it works, I'm all for it.

Hm, I completely agree with this.

But until then, I will not accept "traditional" or "alternative" medicine due to its inherent dangers and uncertainties (and in many cases, uselessness), and neither should anyone else.

A lot of them don't have as much inherent dangers and uncertainties as potent modern medicine though. =/ I accept some alternative medicine, as long as it's pretty simple like drinking ginger soup mixed with honey, lol. Plus, it tastes pretty nice. Try it .

 

[illinialex24]

Its interesting but the safety issue is brought up by both sides frequently. My mom is... whats the word?? Insane. She hates vaccines and the like while I want to become a doctor, so yeah, I frequently try to get her to change opinions telling her I got a rash because of histamine from the dead virus due to a reaction, not the organo-mercury compoun.

Anyway, after that irrelevant rant, most alternative medicine things say they are safer because drug testers sometimes hide bribes, withhold certain samples of the population and other things to get drugs passed. They say you should wait seven years before using any released medication because by then, almost all of the other side effects and issues with the drug test are discovered.

On the other hand, alternative medicine goes through no tetsing. I support real medicine way before but I personally think for a drug with a good alternative, the 7 year rule isn't necessarily a bad one.

 

[Aorist]

I certainly don't believe all alternative medicine is bad and shouldn't be used. My views are almost entirely that of GoldShadow's. Quinine is derived from the bark of the cinchona tree, and was used to prevent against malaria long before medicine turned it into an effective drug.

But isolating and extracting basically creates a more potent form of it, which can be bad at times. And I do believe some alternative medicines have been tested throughout history of their side effects, and with that comes the benefits and detriments. Some have been studied thoroughly too, like most herbs used in alternative medicine have been studied quite thoroughly in Ancient China. Although they didn't have the type of technology as today, they were studied, recorded the benefits, detriments, dosage amounts. etc. Also, some simply cannot be tested due to the government. An example would be marijuana, as most believe it can have medicinal value, but it has not been studied thoroughly because of its classification as an illegal substance.

If isolation and extraction creates a more potent form, the scientific method will discover this and the dosage reduced accordingly.

And even if some alternative medicines have been tested fairly thoroughly before modern medicine came around (and 100 internet-dollars says that they didn't account for the Placebo Effect in their trials), the problem is that we don't know which ones have and which ones have not. It's essentially a healing Russian Roulette.

I believe that's a generalization for some, not all. Some alternative medicines are very simple things such as drinking soup of ______ and it's quite easy to know what's active, inactive, and things just by a little research. =/

GS may have been slightly obfuscating this issue. The benefit of modern medicine is that it is artificial. We know what is in there because we are told, and things that work are put in and things that do not work aren't. We create an effective drug. If you should come down with a reaction to it, you'll probably be able to determine precisely what the problem was. There are no quality regulators on alternative medicine, bar the fact that you can't put known poisons in the stuff. Some things can be intentionally misleading - some homeopathic pills can be effectively glucose, despite what they put on the back, because the concentrations given are miniscule.

I'd continue, but I'm off now. Maybe more stuff when I get back.

 

[SuperBowser]

I agree that a lot of CAM is rubbish. But some therapies have their uses. CAM is an increasing feature of healthcare practice in the western world. It should be thought of as as something complementary with normal medications rather than a replacement therapy.

The difference is that with medication, we have isolated and extracted the active ingredient, created better forms of it, tested it to determine all side effects, quantified the benefits and detriments, and have thoroughly studied it before putting it out on the market. When you buy a bottle of tylenol, you know exactly how much acetaminophen you're getting in each pill; doctors and pharmacists know exactly how it interacts with other drugs, they know what effects everything in the pill has on your organs and body, they know how much you need to take for it to be effective and how much constitutes an overdose.

And yet, CAM has an extraordinarily low rate of adverse events compared to conventional medicines. There's only so much a doctor can do Most drugs have an inherent risk and CAM adverse events usually fare much better.


On the research issue: I agree. Some therapies are potentially harmful and research ought to be done first (most CAMs aren't dangerous though). Several scientists are interested in researching CAM and its effectiveness but unfortunately there's several barriers (I'm only familiar with UK's barriers, but I imagine it's similar in most of the western world).

Most CAM practitioners serve a small, varied number of people meaning there's only a small sample size and most of these patients will have different clinical backgrounds (not good for a study). Most practitioners are also not trained for clinical research and the skills and practices involved.

There is little funding for research; almost none from the government and pharmaceutical industries are obviously not interested.

There are basic methodological problems too. CAM treatments are usually not standardised and it's difficult to blind patients in for certain therapies (acupuncture!). It also doesn't help that many of the studies on CAM conducted so far have been pretty poor making any conclusions drawn from them... unreliable.

All of this makes it very difficult to put CAM up against the scientific method, but that is beginning to change .


As long as a complementary therapy isn't harmful and isn't claiming to do something it can't (like curing cancer) I don't see why it should be banned though. Even if the only thing someone gets out of it is the placebo effect, isn't that worth it? The placebo effect isn't simply in the mind. The majority of people only seek CAM therapy after conventional medicines have failed. It should be their choice to have the therapy. Perhaps CAM therapy provides something that people don't get in conventional healthcare.

 

[GoldShadow]

But isolating and extracting basically creates a more potent form of it, which can be bad at times.

Aorist covered this. Creating more potent forms of it means that we can make more effective treatment. It's simply a matter of dosage control.

And I do believe some alternative medicines have been tested throughout history of their side effects, and with that comes the benefits and detriments. Some have been studied thoroughly too, like most herbs used in alternative medicine have been studied quite thoroughly in Ancient China. Although they didn't have the type of technology as today, they were studied, recorded the benefits, detriments, dosage amounts. etc. Also, some simply cannot be tested due to the government. An example would be marijuana, as most believe it can have medicinal value, but it has not been studied thoroughly because of its classification as an illegal substance.

That's not "testing". Informal testing is just that: informal. Until these therapies go through the same rigorous, quantifiable testing as every other FDA-approved drug (or MHRA in the UK). Anecdotal evidence does not replace the information gleaned from clinical drug trials.

True, but most consumers still don't. =/ And Iirc, tylenol isn't exactly over the counter. It can harm idiots too, lol.

Was not referring to consumers alone, I was referring to the medical and scientific community and consumers as a whole. If somebody calls 911 and says their cousin just swallowed a bottle of tylenol, they know exactly what they are dealing with. If somebody calls and says their cousin just swallowed half a bottle of plantain powder supplement you have no idea how much you're dealing with, how concentrated the stuff is, how pure it is, or if it contains potentially dangerous compounds like digitalis that may not be on the label:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/339/12/806
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/new00570.html

I believe that's a generalization for some, not all. Some alternative medicines are very simple things such as drinking soup of ______ and it's quite easy to know what's active, inactive, and things just by a little research. =/

Granted, that is true, but the point still stands; it is never an issue with FDA-regulated drugs

Again, for some herbs, these have been studied throughout history. Maybe not as thoroughly as today, but the major ones should be known. On the other hand, you are correct that some have not been studied and before they're put in the market, they should be.

Studied through history does not cut it. The entire point of a pharmaceutical and research industry is to find out what part of a treatment does what; the mechanism by which it works; the amount it takes to work; whether it can be enhanced; how much of it is placebo; how well it works, quantifiably; what kind of interactions it has with other known drugs; potential future research applications of the compound or treatment, and other information.

But often times, they have gone through the scientific method of problem, hypothesis, data, results, conclusion. =/ There are many books upon herbal/alternative medicine.

If it's not in scientific journals, it hasn't gone through the scientific method. There are a number of treatments that are being researched and show effectiveness. I'm not saying that all CAM is ineffective. But the research must continue, and until full scale safety and clinical trials are conducted, we don't know enough to prescribe it to the general population. For example, what if the compound in a certain herbal treatment has potentially negative side effects in niche populations like, say, epileptics, or epileptics with diabetes, or Hispanic epileptics with diabetes or something.

A lot of them don't have as much inherent dangers and uncertainties as potent modern medicine though. =/ I accept some alternative medicine, as long as it's pretty simple like drinking ginger soup mixed with honey, lol. Plus, it tastes pretty nice. Try it .

Yeah, that's true. Most (not all) CAM is harmless at worst and beneficial at best. But a lot of CAM can also be dangerous or at least, there are uncertainties associated with it and that's why I don't think we should endorse or encourage it until it's been studied further.

And yet, CAM has an extraordinarily low rate of adverse events compared to conventional medicines. There's only so much a doctor can do Most drugs have an inherent risk and CAM adverse events usually fare much better.

Fair enough. But the corollary is that CAM is not as effective as conventional medicine; it's not a hard and fast rule but generally speaking, the most effective forms of treatment also come with the most risks and side effects.

I think I agree with the rest of what you say SB, for the most part.

 

[SuperBowser]

Oooo, I'm not sure I'd agree with that. The best treatments carry low risks with them too. In depression, exercise and cognitive therapy can be just as effective as medications.

CAM can and has been proven to be more effective that conventional medications in certain cases. Acupuncture, hirudotherapy, and maggots can all be the most effective treatment available in the cases they are applied to.

But yeah, I get what you mean. A lot of CAM is out there stuff that is just a little... strange. Like applied kinesiology .

 

[aeghrur]

Aorist covered this. Creating more potent forms of it means that we can make more effective treatment. It's simply a matter of dosage control.

That's true. =/ Although it's more easy to overdose too... and drug abuse, big issue in US.

That's not "testing". Informal testing is just that: informal. Until these therapies go through the same rigorous, quantifiable testing as every other FDA-approved drug (or MHRA in the UK). Anecdotal evidence does not replace the information gleaned from clinical drug trials.

Wait, so centuries/millenniums of testing, empirical, and logical(yes, there's logical evidence) to some medicines don't count? Sigh...

Was not referring to consumers alone, I was referring to the medical and scientific community and consumers as a whole. If somebody calls 911 and says their cousin just swallowed a bottle of tylenol, they know exactly what they are dealing with. If somebody calls and says their cousin just swallowed half a bottle of plantain powder supplement you have no idea how much you're dealing with, how concentrated the stuff is, how pure it is, or if it contains potentially dangerous compounds like digitalis that may not be on the label:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/339/12/806
http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/news/new00570.html

But most of the time, if you swallow, say, 3 cups of ginger soup, it's not going to make the ambulance come. If you swallow 2 of your mom's pills, you need the ambulance.

Studied through history does not cut it. The entire point of a pharmaceutical and research industry is to find out what part of a treatment does what; the mechanism by which it works; the amount it takes to work; whether it can be enhanced; how much of it is placebo; how well it works, quantifiably; what kind of interactions it has with other known drugs; potential future research applications of the compound or treatment, and other information.

Often times though, Alternative Medicines are quite simple and those things can be easily found out. For example, my mother works in the pharmaceutical field dealing with drug degradation and the likes, and with that knowledge, she understands the effects and all those things of alternative medicines.

If it's not in scientific journals, it hasn't gone through the scientific method.

But they are. It's just in chinese.

There are a number of treatments that are being researched and show effectiveness. I'm not saying that all CAM is ineffective. But the research must continue, and until full scale safety and clinical trials are conducted, we don't know enough to prescribe it to the general population.

I believe you should be able to prescribe it to the general population though, just in less potent forms. =/ Take the plantain powder example, instead of giving plantain powder with it, tell them to eat some cooked plantains in their meals to compliment treatment. I do agree that the research should continue though.

Yeah, that's true. Most (not all) CAM is harmless at worst and beneficial at best. But a lot of CAM can also be dangerous or at least, there are uncertainties associated with
it.

All I was trying to go for. =/

That's why I don't think we should endorse or encourage it until it's been studied further.

However, it will be encouraged through culture, beliefs, and ideals. I think it should be encouraged in correct ways, such as SMALL AMOUNTS and THINK LOGICALLY BEFORE USE. =/

 

[GoldShadow]

Wait, so centuries/millenniums of testing, empirical, and logical(yes, there's logical evidence) to some medicines don't count? Sigh...

I don't think you quite understand the type and detail of information that is required for a thorough study of a drug. Here are a couple examples.

These are links to the results from various phases of a drug trial for an inhaled drug for treatment of COPD, called Combivent:
http://trials.boehringer-ingelheim.com/res/trial/data/pdf/1012.46_suppl_and_synopse.pdf
http://trials.boehringer-ingelheim.com/res/trial/data/pdf/1012.50_U06-3585_new.pdf
http://trials.boehringer-ingelheim.com/res/trial/data/pdf/1012.56_U08-3368.pdf

These are simply summarized results of trials. Detailed, comprehensive information like this is the entire foundation of modern medicine. Without it, biomedicine becomes more of an art than a science. And when it comes to biology and medicine, we need very precise science.

Here are a number of clinical studies (and abstracts) for a hypertension drug called Ramipril (and other antihypertensive medications used with it):
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00153101?spons=%22Boehringer+Ingelheim+Pharmaceuticals%22&spons_ex=Y&rank=6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18757085?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18707986?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18378520?dopt=Abstract
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/115/11/1371

Notice how much depth they go into; these studies focus on entire organ systems and exact molecular mechanisms of action of therapeutic agents (drugs). This is a hundred thousand times more detailed, more exact, more quantifiable, and more useful information than "centuries or millennia" of informal testing.

Often times though, Alternative Medicines are quite simple and those things can be easily found out. For example, my mother works in the pharmaceutical field dealing with drug degradation and the likes, and with that knowledge, she understands the effects and all those things of alternative medicines.

Alternative medicines use the same biochemical and molecular pathways as any other drug. They are not "simple." A thorough study of any treatment will be very exact, and will help us understand exact mechanisms by which any compound works.

Take, for instance, ginkgo biloba. A simple plant that people have taken for millennia. It was in the realm of "complementary and alternative" medicine for a long time, touted to help mood, depression, asthma, sexual dysfunction, memory and cognitive function. It wasn't until relatively recently that the pharmaceutical industry and biomedical researchers took a look at it. Here are just a few studies that were done on ginkgo:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00034021
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00010803
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/19/2253
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20030901/923.html
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ginkgo/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/health/research/18gingko.html
http://memory.ucsf.edu/cjd/livingwithcjd/treatments/ginkgo/single
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00029991
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00103012

The third study shows that ginkgo did not slow down the progression of dementia in Alzheimer's, or the onset of Alzheimer's. The fourth article shows that this common herbal supplement found in any drug store can be dangerous if combined with anticoagulants (anti-clotting meds, heparin, warfarin) and other herbal supplements by causing internal or increased bleeding (which makes sense, because ginkgo increases blood flow).
The last link is a trial studying the effects of ginkgo and herbal supplements on interactions with HIV medications (ie, studying the effects of meds in a niche population, HIV+ patients).

note: Ginkgo does have beneficial properties, but it doesn't help with dementia or memory/cognition like people have claimed for ages.

But they are. It's just in chinese.

Science and biomedical research isn't just an English-language thing, it's a global thing. Clinical trials and scientific research projects and publications come from every corner of the world. In the lab where I work, the PI has collaborated with and co-authored many papers with researchers in Japan and China. A pharmaceutical company I interned at works closely with researchers in Germany.

If researchers in China have done work on something and published it, it's not like the rest of the world ignores it. People use other scientists' research from all around the world in designing their own experiments and trials and coming to their own conclusions. So it's not like China has done research on something and we've never seen it.

I believe you should be able to prescribe it to the general population though, just in less potent forms. =/ Take the plantain powder example, instead of giving plantain powder with it, tell them to eat some cooked plantains in their meals to compliment treatment. I do agree that the research should continue though.

Although I see your point, that's not what "plantain powder" is, and it's part of the reason complementary and alternative medicine can be so misleading and difficult to keep track of.

"Plantain" in most supplements is extract from the plant Plantago major, NOT the thing that looks like a banana.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantago_major
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_n6_v31/ai_19903506/
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/2c75a.htm

That's not readily apparent from many CAM labels:
http://www.smartbomb.com/7510633542...utm_content=751063354202&utm_campaign=2009-03
http://www.vitapal.com/v-herb-pharm...nd-1-oz-1-oz&utm_campaign=googlebase_campaign

 

[aeghrur]

I don't think you quite understand the type and detail of information that is required for a thorough study of a drug. Here are a couple examples.

These are links to the results from various phases of a drug trial for an inhaled drug for treatment of COPD, called Combivent:
http://trials.boehringer-ingelheim.com/res/trial/data/pdf/1012.46_suppl_and_synopse.pdf
http://trials.boehringer-ingelheim.com/res/trial/data/pdf/1012.50_U06-3585_new.pdf
http://trials.boehringer-ingelheim.com/res/trial/data/pdf/1012.56_U08-3368.pdf

These are simply summarized results of trials. Detailed, comprehensive information like this is the entire foundation of modern medicine. Without it, biomedicine becomes more of an art than a science. And when it comes to biology and medicine, we need very precise science.

Here are a number of clinical studies (and abstracts) for a hypertension drug called Ramipril (and other antihypertensive medications used with it):
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00153101?spons=%22Boehringer+Ingelheim+Pharmaceuticals%22&spons_ex=Y&rank=6
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18757085?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18707986?dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18378520?dopt=Abstract
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/115/11/1371

Notice how much depth they go into; these studies focus on entire organ systems and exact molecular mechanisms of action of therapeutic agents (drugs). This is a hundred thousand times more detailed, more exact, more quantifiable, and more useful information than "centuries or millennia" of informal testing.

I see your point, but the point I'm making is not that the testing is of equal value.
I'm saying that you can't simply discredit all those tests just because they're "informal." They still have value which you need to take into account to realize, "Hm, maybe this can do SOMETHING. It does seem to have beneficial effects and some credibility."

Alternative medicines use the same biochemical and molecular pathways as any other drug. They are not "simple." A thorough study of any treatment will be very exact, and will help us understand exact mechanisms by which any compound works.

Take, for instance, ginkgo biloba. A simple plant that people have taken for millennia. It was in the realm of "complementary and alternative" medicine for a long time, touted to help mood, depression, asthma, sexual dysfunction, memory and cognitive function. It wasn't until relatively recently that the pharmaceutical industry and biomedical researchers took a look at it. Here are just a few studies that were done on ginkgo:
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00034021
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00010803
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/300/19/2253
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20030901/923.html
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/ginkgo/
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/health/research/18gingko.html
http://memory.ucsf.edu/cjd/livingwithcjd/treatments/ginkgo/single
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00029991
http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00103012

The third study shows that ginkgo did not slow down the progression of dementia in Alzheimer's, or the onset of Alzheimer's. The fourth article shows that this common herbal supplement found in any drug store can be dangerous if combined with anticoagulants (anti-clotting meds, heparin, warfarin) and other herbal supplements by causing internal or increased bleeding (which makes sense, because ginkgo increases blood flow).
The last link is a trial studying the effects of ginkgo and herbal supplements on interactions with HIV medications (ie, studying the effects of meds in a niche population, HIV+ patients).

note: Ginkgo does have beneficial properties, but it doesn't help with dementia or memory/cognition like people have claimed for ages.

Hm, that's interesting. =/ But these tests did show that Ginkgo has beneficial properties right? Like, with common diseases and stuff? Which, again, shows that the informal tests have some validity, although they are not of equal value to modern testing.

Science and biomedical research isn't just an English-language thing, it's a global thing. Clinical trials and scientific research projects and publications come from every corner of the world. In the lab where I work, the PI has collaborated with and co-authored many papers with researchers in Japan and China. A pharmaceutical company I interned at works closely with researchers in Germany.

If researchers in China have done work on something and published it, it's not like the rest of the world ignores it. People use other scientists' research from all around the world in designing their own experiments and trials and coming to their own conclusions. So it's not like China has done research on something and we've never seen it.

Then... great. But... what does this have to do with the fact that there have been Books/Journals published in chinese about alternative medicine? This just states it's known. =/

Although I see your point, that's not what "plantain powder" is, and it's part of the reason complementary and alternative medicine can be so misleading and difficult to keep track of.

"Plantain" in most supplements is extract from the plant Plantago major, NOT the thing that looks like a banana.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plantago_major
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1370/is_n6_v31/ai_19903506/
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/2c75a.htm

That's not readily apparent from many CAM labels:
http://www.smartbomb.com/7510633542...utm_content=751063354202&utm_campaign=2009-03
http://www.vitapal.com/v-herb-pharm...nd-1-oz-1-oz&utm_campaign=googlebase_campaign

LOL! Haha, that's... very idiotic of me. >_< Hm, I can see this being a big problem then, lol.

 

[GoldShadow]

I see your point, but the point I'm making is not that the testing is of equal value.
I'm saying that you can't simply discredit all those tests just because they're "informal." They still have value which you need to take into account to realize, "Hm, maybe this can do SOMETHING. It does seem to have beneficial effects and some credibility."



Hm, that's interesting. =/ But these tests did show that Ginkgo has beneficial properties right? Like, with common diseases and stuff? Which, again, shows that the informal tests have some validity, although they are not of equal value to modern testing.

Ah, okay, now I see what you were saying. I thought you meant that informally obtained knowledge should replace or be held equivalent to some clinical research.
I'm with you on this point, if something has been shown to be beneficial, then we should encourage further research on it.

Then... great. But... what does this have to do with the fact that there have been Books/Journals published in chinese about alternative medicine? This just states it's known. =/

You made it sound like since they were published in Chinese journals, we've ignored them. If there have been credible studies on some CAM in China, then that's great. But if that's the case, then it's shown the same thing as studies done in other parts of the world; that CAM can have benefits but is not often as effective as conventional medicine, nor is it as safe (not in terms of risks or side effects... we all know that conventional medicine has plenty of those. I mean from a medical standpoint; with conventional meds, we know exactly what's in them and how they work and how to deal with them in a clinical or hospital setting; with CAM, it's a little trickier and can make things harder for docs and healthcare workers).

 

[Aorist]

aeghrur, are you familiar with the Placebo Effect? If not, it's essentially where you think you're recieving a beneficial treatment, so your body actually does go a small or even large way towards healing itself. It's well-documented. Here's the wikipedia article on the subject ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo_Effect ).

Anyway, the thing is, the medicines could have been having a positive effect on people for centuries, and still be doing nothing, simply because of the Placebo Effect. Scientific trials eliminate this possibility. Even though this still counts as helping, the same effect can be achieved by a sugar pill, for a tiny fraction of the expense (and danger) for the consumer.

 

[illinialex24]

Yeah, or a saline pill. Preferably sugar lol. But yeah, its a very common and hugely influential effect.

I remember for one drug like Prozac, the influence of the placebo helped out 40% of people, compared the Prozac helping like 50%. It was originally though to be 60% but they hid trials.

 

[Faithkeeper]

I agree with much of what has been said: There is potential danger in alternative medicine, and it should be thoroughly investigated to test its safety. Much of the alternative medicine does very little at all and can even be harmful. Uncertain doses of alternative medicine can present a dangerous situation if overdosed. Yet there is an added advantage of alternative medicine that most posters seem to brush aside or overlook: the power of the placebo effect.

Multiple posters said that often alternative medicine did little more than have the power of the placebo effect, yet my question to them would be: Why is this a problem?

The power of the placebo effect is undeniable, placebos have been effectively used on patients suffering from these conditions:

* ADHD:adult,[121] child[122]
* Amalgam fillings: attributed symptoms (inert "chelation" therapy)[123]
* Anxiety disorders[124][125]
* Asthma (water aerosol inhalant)[126]
* Asthma[127][128]table 1
* Autism: language and behavior problems[129][130]
* Benign prostatic enlargement[131]
* Binge eating disorder[132]
* Bipolar mania[133]
* Chronic fatigue syndrome[134]
* Cough[135]
* Crohn's disease[136]
* Depression (Light treatment; low red light placebo)[137]
* Depression[138][139][140][141]
* Dyspepsia and gastric motility[142]
* Epilepsy[143]
* Erectile dysfunction[144]
* Food allergy: ability to eat ill-making foods[73] p. 54
* Gastric and duodenal ulcers[73][145][119]
* Headache[146]
* Heart failure, congestive[147]
* Herpes simplex[148]
* Hypertension: mild and moderate[149][21]
* Irritable bowel syndrome[150][151]
* Migraine prophylaxis[152]
* Multiple sclerosis[153]
* Nausea: gastric activity[154]
* Nausea: chemotherapy[155]
* Nausea and vomiting: postoperative (sham acupuncture)[156]
* Pain[157][158]
* Panic disorders[159]
* Parkinson’s disease[160][161]
* Pathological gambling[162]
* Premenstrual dysphoric disorder.[163]
* Psoriatic arthritis[164]
* Reflux esophagitis[165]
* Restless leg syndrome[166]
* Rheumatic diseases[167]
* Sexual dysfunction: women[168]
* Social phobia[169]
* Third molar extraction swelling (sham ultra-sound)[7][8]
* Ulcerative colitis[170]
* Vulvar vestibulitis[171]

(source= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo)


I think there is little debate in whether or not the placebo is effective, so why not apply this to alternative medicine? If an individual has convinced themselves that an alternative medicine will work, (which individuals obviously have, given alternative medicine's relative prevalence) why not make sure these alternative medicines are safe and then harness the power of the placebo effect?

"Expectation is a powerful thing," says Robert DeLap, M.D., head of one of the Food and Drug Administration's Offices of Drug Evaluation. "The more you believe you're going to benefit from a treatment, the more likely it is that you will experience a benefit."

While for the general populous, conventional medicine should be recommended due to the fact it is undoubtedly more effective in a neutral setting, I think (tested and proven safe) alternative medicine (as a placebo) is a rather viable option to those who refuse to take conventional medicine, like these individuals:

Debbie Benson
Age: 55
Fort Bragg, California
Died (cancer)
July 15, 1997
She had a deep distrust of traditional medicine, so she sought out naturopaths and other alternative practitioners for her breast cancer. It raged out of control and she died.

Marcia Bergeron
Age: 57
Quadra Island, British Columbia, Canada
Died (poisoning)
December 26, 2006
She distrusted conventional medicine, so she decided to self-medicate using pills purchased from a Canadian online pharmacy. What she didn't know was the pharmacy was not actually Canadian and the pills were tainted with toxic heavy metals.

From http://www.whatstheharm.net/alternativemedicine.html originally posted by aeghrur.

When a patient refuses to take conventional medicine, (Which they have the constitutional right to do. [In the united states]) there is little more that could be done, but if this individual believes that the alternative medicine will work where conventional will not, giving alternative medicine as a placebo seems to be one of the only options left to help. Also, if the doctor recommends this treatment with enthusiasm, it could further increase the placebo effect.

New findings show that the placebo effect - in which patients given an inactive treatment believe it can cure - is most powerful when a trusted physician enthusiastically offers a patient a new therapy. In a study of more than 6,000 patients being given experimental treatments for asthma, duodenal ulcer, and herpes, two-thirds improved

"Could an enthusiastic physician and a believing patient create a clinical improvement in a patient?" said Dr. Ronald Glaser, a virologist at Ohio State University Medical School. "That question has haunted drug studies. But there may well be a psychological effect with a significant biological outcome, if you extrapolate from data showing that psychological factors like stress can affect viruses like herpes. It's definitely one possible explanation."

It seems evident to me, that in cases like those mentioned above, not only giving, but enthusiastically supporting alternative medicine is the best course of action towards saving a patients life. It would by no means be a picture-perfect scenario, but we don't exactly live in a picture-perfect world, at least through my eyes.

Thoughts?


Additional Sources:
http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/2000/100_heal.html
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ColdandFluNews/Story?id=6099708&page=1
http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/102408.htm
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=ahaD1J6VIA.o&refer=home

 

[Aorist]

Well, there would be two main problems with it.

1) Expense. Why go to the trouble of an alternative treatment when you can just say "Yo, here's a miracle pill" and hand them some glucose.

2) Once they're embraced by science for the fact that they show the placebo effect, I think word would get out fairly quickly why.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Well, there would be two main problems with it.

Thank you for your comments.

1) Expense. Why go to the trouble of an alternative treatment when you can just say "Yo, here's a miracle pill" and hand them some glucose.

Well if that would work, that would be excellent. And I'm quite sure that in some cases it would, and that would be a far preferable option. But I also think there are those who would come in (or be taken in, how they get there doesn't seem like a very important factor to me atm) with a mental predisposition towards a certain alternative treatment. Maybe a friend or relative recommended it to them, and they trust this more than the doctor's miracle pill. You bring up an excellent point, but I do think cases of this matter would come up.

2) Once they're embraced by science for the fact that they show the placebo effect, I think word would get out fairly quickly why.

Another excellent point, and I find it entirely true. It seems to me that this would most definitely happen. Yet, my question is, would this actually dissuade them? If these individuals are already wanting to take alternative medicine because they won't take conventional medicine, I seriously doubt they'll give a hoot about what science says. I think that it is important to note that:

90% of people are not logical.

I find this statement quite true. While logic may play a role in their life, it is not their main driver. Look at the prominence of religion for an example. (Nothing against religion, most would call me "religious", I was just pointing out that many people do not look to human logic for all their answers.

Spoiler

[For the love of Pete, no one turn this into a religious debate]

) I find application of the aforementioned quote in that if these people really relied on logic, or science, or empirical evidence: they wouldn't be looking to alternative medicine in the first place, and would not (in my eyes) be relevant to the point I brought up.

 

[KrazyGlue]

I would agree that alternative medicine needs to be tested, just like any other product that is marketed. I would also agree that they should not be treated as conventional medicine unless they are proven to have effects that actually help the person using them.

But they shouldn't be completely illegal unless they are determined to be a serious danger to the user and those around them. Otherwise, the person using them is responsible for the possible negative (or non-existent) effects it has on them, as long as the "medicine" is legal.

 

[Mewter]

If people want to use alternative medicine and refuse scientifically tested medicine, go ahead. These kinds of people would probably NEVER (for some odd reason) use conventional medicine that has actually been proven to do something, so their only choice by default is alternative medicine.

As long as it doesn't harm the people taking it or the people around them, be my guest. Just don't try to go around falsely advertising it as "proven".

 

[KrazyGlue]

Even if it harms the user and they are aware of the risks, I would say it's ok. Only if the user is risking those around them by taking the "medication" should it be illegal. There are plenty of things that we do that can be unhealthy, but as long as we know the risks, they are allowed.

 

[Mewter]

Even if it harms the user and they are aware of the risks, I would say it's ok. Only if the user is risking those around them by taking the "medication" should it be illegal. There are plenty of things that we do that can be unhealthy, but as long as we know the risks, they are allowed.

I meant major/intermediate risks. Not tiny ones like headaches.
Sorry, should have clarified.

 

[GoldShadow]

Multiple posters said that often alternative medicine did little more than have the power of the placebo effect, yet my question to them would be: Why is this a problem?

The power of the placebo effect is undeniable, placebos have been effectively used on patients suffering from these conditions:

When a patient refuses to take conventional medicine, (Which they have the constitutional right to do. [In the united states]) there is little more that could be done, but if this individual believes that the alternative medicine will work where conventional will not, giving alternative medicine as a placebo seems to be one of the only options left to help. Also, if the doctor recommends this treatment with enthusiasm, it could further increase the placebo effect.

I think everybody acknowledges the power of placebo; at least, I do.

But the dilemma lies elsewhere. There is a major ethical issue with actively promoting therapeutics that only work by way of placebo.

One of the very foundations of modern medicine and science is information; to provide patients with accurate and honest information about their condition and treatment options.

If medical professionals were to start lying to patients and encouraging alternative medicine to patients who refused conventional medicine, you would be going against everything that modern medicine has become in terms of patients.

You would, in essence, be removing the patients' autonomy as rational agents and human beings. Patient autonomy and informed consent are a cornerstone of modern medicine. It is a framework that sees patients as human beings whose autonomy and agency should be respected. This is achieved by being honest with them; giving them information about their diagnosis, condition, prognosis, and treatment. It means letting them exercise their autonomy; if they want a treatment, they can have it. If they refuse, that is also their right, so long as they have been given all the facts.

Lying to patients by encouraging the use of placebos goes against all that. It is a medical professional's legal and ethical responsibility to be honest with the patient. If an alternative medicine does not work as its conventional counterpart, don't lie to the patient. Tell him or her that, in your professional opinion, the conventional medicine is better than the (placebo) alternative medicine. If, despite that, the patient refuses, that is his or her right. At least you (the medical professional) have done right by science and medicine by giving the patient the right information.

Not telling the whole truth confiscates the patient's autonomy and status as a decision-making-agent.

Additionally, it would jeopardize confidence in medical professionals. If encouraging placebo in place of real treatment became widespread, people would start asking "can I really trust my doctor to tell me the truth?"

Docs are already on shaky ground with the whole prescribing drugs from certain pharmaceutical companies due to perks from the companies. Having docs lie to patients about alternative medicine could be the straw that breaks the camel's back.

 

[Faithkeeper]

Well GoldShadow, you have convinced me. I completely agree.

 

[aeghrur]

Oh, btw Goldshadow, I highly doubt that there will be any research done upon alternative medicines. Mainly because if alternative medicine does happen to have some beneficial effects, the medical doctors would hate it, lol.

 

[SuperBowser]

Actually, lots of medical doctors have expressed interest in researching atlernative medicine - they just don't have the tools or funding to do so.

In the next few decades, you can expect alternative medicine to begin many of the rigorous trials that traditional medicines have gone through though .

 

[Aorist]

I think I object to the scientifically-tested medicine being labelled as "traditional medicine". Medicine is always changing and new things are being discovered and tested all of the time. Alternative medicine is the one that has obeyed the same formula over and over again, and is thus far more aptly titled "traditional".