Poll: Nateropathic Doctors?

[Seldon2639]

The effectiveness of some modern medicine is disputable.

It could also be argued that the companies might just falsify data just to sell their products, no one will notice the side-effects, they'll just want pills for the stomach cramp too.
Win, win!

They might. But then the FDA would pimp-slap them. There's this odd undercurrent of paranoia in the homeopathic community, where you folks believe that no one is really watching out to make sure that real medicine actually works. The reverse is true. Literally no one actually monitors or controls homeopathic medicine, whereas a bunch of groups monitor the effectiveness and safety of real medicine.

The FDA monitors drug trials, and if anything is falsified or misrepresented, they get to the bottom of it and pull the drug. If an "herbal supplement" doesn't work, no one does anything about it. It's snake oil.

 

[Seldon2639]

Alright, fine you want to know what I had? Can't tell you. I don't know, doctors don't know and naturopaths don't know. The difference is, naturapaths tried to help, despite their ignorence. Doctors just dismissed me. It's a woeful system wherein if something can't be proven, it doesn't exist. That's the way it happens. As for my friend, I honestly don't remember his entire story but after about 4 years he was finally diagnosed with Lyhms (?) disease. He was rejected by so many doctors it makes me sick.

So, basically, the only thing you know is that these homeopaths treated you, and later you felt better. That's fine, but doesn't show anything causal, nor that it isn't just the placebo effect. If there's nothing physically wrong with you, treatment can help the psychology, but that's not proof of empirical and real effectiveness of the treatment on any physical disorder

The only disease anything close to "Lyhm's" disease I found was "Lyme Disease", which would have been as easy diagnosis. I dunno what your friend had, but something just doesn't strike me right about the idea that he had a real disease which was missed by every doctor he went to, but which was diagnosed and successfully treated by a homeopath.

Look, I'm not saying we should be abandoning modern medicine, I just want to see credit where credit is due. The fact that some random guy can determine heavy vitamin defeciency through a hair sample (for free, mind you) where all blood tests, brain scans, body scans, etc. failed, well, I just don't like seeing them bashed like this.

Uh... Yeah. The problem is that such tests aren't used in medical science. If the other bodily functions are normal, any apparent 'deficiency" isn't really a deficiency. Each type of actual deficiency has a normal etiology. The only way it wouldn't be detected is if you're asymptomatic, which makes it "no big deal" anyway.

I'm glad you also brought up acupuncture, because that did more for me than the worthless neurologist I saw. The guy administering it tries everything he performs on himself first. He's a physiotherapist, btw. There's the answer to your riddle. Unless you think physiotherapy isn't real medicine, of course.

Except acupuncture isn't effective. It really doesn't work. And, the answer to my question is that this guy must be both trained and accepted the supremacy of western medicine as proven by the fact that he does acupuncture? That doesn't sound right.

Cool contribution. He slags off a group of people who stepped in and saved my life. I'm sorry but this is something I'm very passionate about.

Yeah, but your passion doesn't exclude you from having to debate reasonably and respectfully. No matter how much you actually care about the issue, you don't get to just state that you're right, you have to back it up with the data. And you don't get to curse at people, that's just rude.

Yeah, naturopaths saved me where doctors didn't care. That about sums it up.

Why do people always bring up cancer? If you've got cancer and you go to a naturopath, you're a fool. I'll be honest.

Perhaps 80%, but as soon as it's undiagnosable, you're stuffed in the conventional medical community. I know this from experience.

Weeeelll... No. Homeopaths treated you when doctors couldn't find anything medically wrong with you. Whether you would have recovered on your own, whether you would have done just as well on a placebo, these claims are unproved merely by the correlation. If I drink grape juice and never get cancer, I don't get to claim grape juice prevents cancer (or diabetes, or anything else).

Yes, once doctors have found nothing to be medically wrong with you, they don't treat you medically. But, that doesn't mean that someone who's willing to treat you anyway automatically has some greater knowledge, expertise, or interest in your well-being.

 

[Good morning blues]

It's 95% quackery and 5% coincidence. Naturopathy tend to be less clearly peddlers than, say, homeopathy, and there are a couple of good ideas buried in it, but it's mostly just a way to sell a lot of unregulated "natural remedies."

 

[Booze Zombie]

They might. But then the FDA would pimp-slap them. There's this odd undercurrent of paranoia in the homeopathic community, where you folks believe that no one is really watching out to make sure that real medicine actually works. The reverse is true. Literally no one actually monitors or controls homeopathic medicine, whereas a bunch of groups monitor the effectiveness and safety of real medicine.

The FDA monitors drug trials, and if anything is falsified or misrepresented, they get to the bottom of it and pull the drug. If an "herbal supplement" doesn't work, no one does anything about it. It's snake oil.

I just don't take medicine full stop, I would like to note.
No homoeopathic, no "traditional" or shamanistic healing techniques, I just try my best to drink eight cups of water and eat as much fruit as possible a day.

Now, I want to state that what I'm arguing here isn't a conspiracy theory, but simply that companies can (not always, but sometimes) exert more control than governments.
Say a pill company makes a cheap drug and they can make lots of it and it's for something really common, so they'd be very, very rich if they got it sold.

Who's to say they don't pay a scientist and some FDA employees to get it all going through rather quickly?
If everyone was playing along, just taking money, getting pills with "minor side-effects" out to the public, no one's getting hurt, right, why would they ever admit anything?

Some medicine is good, all I'm arguing is that some is bad and companies seem determined to not have it proved, for risk of offending their stock holders and losing one of their five houses.

 

[Seldon2639]

I just don't take medicine full stop, I would like to note.
No homoeopathic, no "traditional" or shamanistic healing techniques, I just try my best to drink eight cups of water and eat as much fruit as possible a day.

Wow. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Also, you do know the whole "eight glasses of water per day" thing is a myth, right?

Now, I want to state that what I'm arguing here isn't a conspiracy theory, but simply that companies can (not always, but sometimes) exert more control than governments.
Say a pill company makes a cheap drug and they can make lots of it and it's for something really common, so they'd be very, very rich if they got it sold.

Who's to say they don't pay a scientist and some FDA employees to get it all going through rather quickly?
If everyone was playing along, just taking money, getting pills with "minor side-effects" out to the public, no one's getting hurt, right, why would they ever admit anything?

You can't make a conspiracy theory not a conspiracy theory simply by stating it isn't. You're arguing that there can be conspiracies which would allow a drug to get to market which is either provably unsafe, or provably ineffective. Even assuming that these companies were able to bribe scientists to fudge the tests, those tests are peer reviewed, so someone would see the error, they're also public. And, not for nothing, but the FDA requires a bunch of different trials to get a drug to market. Even after that, if the drug were unsafe, and it were later proven to have been brought to market illicitly, the company would lose everything.

Yes, drugs have side-effects. But, generally, given the option between "dry mouth" and "heart attack", I'm gonna go with the less harmful one.

It's a conspiracy theory, plain and simple. Who's to say that there's no conspiracy to get drugs to bypass the safety testing? Everyone who acts as a safeguard against it, including the entire hierarchy of the FDA, the scientists, the company itself, and the judicial system. Could all of them be compromised one way or another? I guess, but that's about the same likelihood of me having sex with Anne Hathaway. Possible, and with more money than Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and the entire U.S government combined, might happen; but decidedly unlikely.

Some medicine is good, all I'm arguing is that some is bad and companies seem determined to not have it proved, for risk of offending their stock holders and losing one of their five houses.

[Needs Citations]

Do drugs exists which treat silly illnesses? Sure. Do drugs exist which might not be worth it for certain people? Yeah. Do drugs exist which are patently unsafe or ineffective in treating the illnesses they claim to treat? It's a one-in-a-million shot. I bet if you go back fifty years, you can't find more than a dozen drugs which have gotten to market and have either been wholly unsafe, or wholly ineffective.

Which is not to say that herbal supplements don't suck. I'm defending medicine here, not pseudo-science. I can find about fifty different herbal supplements in the past twenty years which are either wholly useless, or actually dangerous.

 

[Abedeus]

Doctors are fucking worthless. Naturopathy has done more for me than modern fucking medicine.

I fucking hate doctors.

Though I should ask, what's wrong with your sister?

Well, let's see: NO medical degree, NO formal training, AND doesn't believe in modern medical theories? How does any part of that sound good?

Let's see, NO knowledge of this person or their training and NO knowledge of their personal views on modern medical theories. How is your post in any way credible?

It may be ones opinion but you can't argue that the life expectancy now is 3 times higher than it was before modern practices came along.

Mostly due to better hygiene and varied diets.

Both of which are covered by Naturopathy.

Without ANY medicine, I would've suffocated because of my asthma when I was 5. Your point is invalid.

Also every single diabetic person would have an average life expectancy of... uhm, 7 years? On average, some die earlier, some later.

Oh, and notice how in some countries, the average life expectancy is about 27 years. Those poor countries in Africa, where they don't even have medicine for things as trivial as TB, which most of us get vaccinated for before we are 10.

Not saying nature can't heal stuff and so on, because basically 90% of the drugs before the invention of pills and injections were herbs... but you can't something that could have bug eggs in it.

I am of the opinion, myself, that most things can be solved by drinking loads of water and eating loads of fruit and vegetables.

Diabetes says hi. Cancers say hi. Viruses and bacteria say hi. Also basically every single parasite, fungi or genetic disease known to mankind say hi too.

The only thing water can solve is dehydration.

 

[Pimppeter2]

Mostly due to better hygiene and varied diets.

Both of which are covered by Naturopathy.

Without ANY medicine, I would've suffocated because of my asthma when I was 5. Your point is invalid.

Also every single diabetic person would have an average life expectancy of... uhm, 7 years? On average, some die earlier, some later.

Oh, and notice how in some countries, the average life expectancy is about 27 years. Those poor countries in Africa, where they don't even have medicine for things as trivial as TB, which most of us get vaccinated for before we are 10.

Not saying nature can't heal stuff and so on, because basically 90% of the drugs before the invention of pills and injections were herbs... but you can't something that could have bug eggs in it.

So, reading comprehension huh?

Also notice how people in under developed countries are starving (or have a very malnourished diet), and generally have VERY bad hygiene?

I never said that medicine has no role, just that simple things like eating well and hygiene have had a greater effect on life expectancy than drugs.

So yes, before you call my argument invalid, you may want to revisit the fifth grade.

 

[Abedeus]

Mostly due to better hygiene and varied diets.

Both of which are covered by Naturopathy.

Without ANY medicine, I would've suffocated because of my asthma when I was 5. Your point is invalid.

Also every single diabetic person would have an average life expectancy of... uhm, 7 years? On average, some die earlier, some later.

Oh, and notice how in some countries, the average life expectancy is about 27 years. Those poor countries in Africa, where they don't even have medicine for things as trivial as TB, which most of us get vaccinated for before we are 10.

Not saying nature can't heal stuff and so on, because basically 90% of the drugs before the invention of pills and injections were herbs... but you can't something that could have bug eggs in it.

So, reading comprehension huh?

Also notice how people in under developed countries are starving (or have a very malnourished diet), and generally have VERY bad hygiene?

I never said that medicine has no role, just that simple things like eating well and hygiene have had a greater effect on life expectancy than drugs.

So yes, before you call my argument invalid, you may want to revisit the fifth grade.

Fifth grade? In fifth grade, we had nothing like that. Then again, I'm not American.

All the hygiene in the world won't save you if you catch a disease that needs drugs. Not to mention, too much hygiene (like, shower or a bath twice a day) not only destroys your body's natural defenses against outside influences, it also contributes to the development of auto-aggressive diseases.

Trust me, if my grandparents were born 5-10 years later, they would still be alive thanks to breakthroughs in medicine. 15 years ago, lung cancer was fatal, nowadays you have a chance.

Still, it's sad you WON'T be suspended for insulting me, considering I was reported and suspended for a similar "insult".

 

[WolfThomas]

Ooh, and my doctor is quite weird. He was asking about my sex life, and I had to reply, "I'm sorry, I'm comfortable discussing this with you."
I was half expecting him to ask, 'so, what's your favourite position?'

That's not that weird, there are some symptoms (usually urological but some can seem completely random like impotence because of heart failure) that suggest a doctor should inquire about sexual history, it may not be likely that its the cause, but you want to make sure you pick it up if it is. It's really embarrassing if someones pregnant and you miss it, or it can be more serious if something like HIV is involved. Once again these are usually not the common cause, you just want to rule them out.

But yes a question about positions would be very inappropriate...

 

[Latinidiot]

Those guys? I hear they can be quite good, you just have to find the right ones. I mean, surely there are scammers AND good ones?

 

[WolfThomas]

Those guys? I hear they can be quite good, you just have to find the right ones. I mean, surely there are scammers AND good ones?

Well the problem is that even the "good ones", the ones who genuinely believe in their stuff and helping people, their methods are not backed up by any solid scientific data. That doesn't mean they don't help people but it's mainly through common sense, placebo, regression to mean or giving people attention/validating their concerns (cheap therapy/placebo).

I have nothing wrong with people supplementing their treatment with complementary/alternative medicine, it's when they replace it completely that it's a problem. Or when they complain about the cost of drugs (which are subsidized in Australia) but fork out craploads for ayurveda treatment.

 

[Yennick]

...

 

[deus-ex-machina]

It's sad that this thread has been so aggressive. I've just finished an MPharm degree and there is support for both fields although of course in the UK, conventional medicine has more supporters.

At the moment, the use of holistic medicine being prescribed on the NHS is a hot topic because of the lack of supporting evidence that exists for a large majority of the treatments on offer, or because there are conventional medicines which are more effective. Personally, I'm all for it if people want to spend their own money on the alternative remedies, because if they make a choice, it is there own fault if things go wrong, but patients of a sound mind almost always have the right to choose. All we could do is offer them the most sensible information available for us, which is often to use conventional medicine and drugs - since the benefits have been proven, EVEN if the exact mechanisms of action are not known (ie metformin for type II diabetes mellitus... even paracetamol [acetaminophen] has a largely unknown mechanism of action).

Many drugs in 'conventional' medicine are semi-synthetic, so they have been based off holistic approaches of treatment but the original compound has been altered to make it less toxic, to be more specific and generally produce a better drug. I know naturopathy uses a lot of non-medicinal approaches, but as I just said, I've just finished my degree, which would make me an expert in drugs, drug use and the way anything you stick in your body has an effect so I'm talking about what I know rather than come across as utterly ignorant and offend the people who support the naturopathic approach.

I just don't think it is a sensible idea to generalise an entire healthcare field because of one bad experience. While it is a depressing thought, some doctors are going to be better than others. So see a different doctor. It's the same for all professions. Would you stop going to shops because you had a bad experience once? For me, turning your back on conventional medicine because of some bad experiences is as extreme as boycotting retail stores, buying up some land, starting up your own farm and living in the dark because you refuse to buy light bulbs... because you had a bad experience in one shop.

I don't see how the use of botanical medicine or traditional Chinese medicine can compete with conventional medicine for many chronic conditions, cancers or infections either in efficacy or more importantly, safety. But I see its use and I think the academics in the UK do too. We were taught about this holistic approach under the name 'Complimentary Medicine', because it is used in conjuction with conventional, evidence based medicine. It is of course your choice, but one day you may regret holding such vehement views, so try not to take it out on other people.

 

[Spacelord]

I had to wiki the whole naturopathy thing. I'm sorry but if you want to institute a treatment for any illness you pretty much have to prove that the treatment significantly does anything more than a placebo trial in order to confidently offer it to patients. Also you'd better want to have a full body of knowledge predicting any side effects or comorbidity of ailments.

Now, I'm not saying that naturopathy is completely useless - I'm sure some patients of naturopathic doctors do significantly improve, and even a placebo can work wonders in many instances - it is unreliable, which is dangerous when you look at treating illness. With unreliable results and questionable theoretical underpinnings the practice of naturopathy can switch from a matter of treatment to a matter of faith which is a very slippery slope indeed.

 

[LogicNProportion]

I misread the poll and said "Yes" when I meant "Yes to real doctors, not the one from your story."

Now I feel dumb...

 

[Booze Zombie]

Diabetes says hi. Cancers say hi. Viruses and bacteria say hi. Also basically every single parasite, fungi or genetic disease known to mankind say hi too.

The only thing water can solve is dehydration.

Being hydrated keeps your blood pressure down, making you less prone to illness in the first place and less prone to heart problems.
The vegetables and fruit, give you all the stuff you need to fight off the day to day and if you can't fight it off with all the resources you body needs... you probably need medical assistance.

But most people aren't fighting parasites, to my knowledge, they're chugging pills because they've got a bit of a cough.

So, what I'm saying is, I believe that people could help all medical practitioners not waste their time by simply drinking enough water and having an apple or something, that way, only the serious shit has to be sorted out.

 

[Abedeus]

Diabetes says hi. Cancers say hi. Viruses and bacteria say hi. Also basically every single parasite, fungi or genetic disease known to mankind say hi too.

The only thing water can solve is dehydration.

Being hydrated keeps your blood pressure down, making you less prone to illness in the first place and less prone to heart problems.
The vegetables and fruit, give you all the stuff you need to fight off the day to day and if you can't fight it off with all the resources you body needs... you probably need medical assistance.

But most people aren't fighting parasites, to my knowledge, they're chugging pills because they've got a bit of a cough.

So, what I'm saying is, I believe that people could help all medical practitioners not waste their time by simply drinking enough water and having an apple or something, that way, only the serious shit has to be sorted out.

Source on your "hydrated makes less prone to illness". Being over-hydrated is also very dangerous, a woman last year died because there was a contest "who can drink more, wins a prize". 13 liters, or something like that, later, she died. Water poisoning.

Also, no, vegetables and fruits don't give you everything you need. You need a lot of proteins and milk, too. Also fats and sugars, in small amounts, are necessary.

People chugging pills because they have a cough are as stupid as people going to faith healers because they have a pancreatic cancer. Or a thyroid cancer.

Also, your advice "drink enough water and eat vegetables" is really, really basic. It's basically how everyone nowadays lives... outside of the countries with 40%+ obesity rate, and it still doesn't help against the serious things.

 

[UberNoodle]

RE- increased lifespan being reportedly because of modern medicine, and naturopathy being a 'scam'.


Increased lifespan has much more to do with the vast improvements in our living standards due to technological and social development. The diametric difference in approach of modern medicine and Naturopathy, shouldn't be ignored. The first is mostly REACTIVE, treating symptoms of already manifesting ailments. The latter is PROACTIVE designed to increase the efficiency of the body, thus minimising the chance of many health problems in the future. It is not numbojumbo or a scam. What I can argue is that Asia has and has had some of the oldest people in the world, due to the pervasion of Eastern naturopathy. It is a Western minded mistake to try to use such treatments in a reactive way.

I don't a link for this next fact because I read in that much maligned invention called a 'book': during the Korean war, the bodies of Korean and American soldiers were compared. It turned out that by comparison, the young soldiers had organs at the equivalent level of degradation and wear, as middleaged Koreans! Why? Because at that time, Korea didn't have so many of the self destructive dietry habits of the Americans. Naturopathy is about similar equilibrium to thus avoid health problems. Diet is a big part of that. Such wisdom should not be dismissed because of modern arrogance that how things are done now is always 'progression'.

 

[thenumberthirteen]

As with all doctors there is a varying spectrum of Quackery. Some Naturopaths stick to their field and are trained highly in their profession and in general medicine. They know what they can, and cannot, treat.

Others buy their degree out the back of comic books and proscribe, sometimes dangerous, concoctions for life threatening diseases while actively discouraging the patient seek proper medical care.

Nature isn't special or good for you. Just because something is "All Natural" (a meaningless statement) doesn't mean it's harmless there are countless deadly toxins and diseases that are all natural. Modern medicine aims to take the good parts of nature and remove the bad parts.

I am of the opinion, myself, that most things can be solved by drinking loads of water and eating loads of fruit and vegetables.

Eating well can improve your chances of not getting certain ailments or diseases, but there are very few medical problems that can be solved by eating fruit and veg.

 

[Booze Zombie]

Eating well can improve your chances of not getting certain ailments or diseases, but there are very few medical problems that can be solved by eating fruit and veg.

I hardly expect a missing limb to grow back because I eat my carrots, you know.
But I think it'll make my body that much stronger, increasing my chances of not dying to something small and avoidable.