Alternative medicine is mainstream

I agree.
If by "alternative medicine" you mean eating a healthy diet, quitting smoking, getting enough sleep, and exercise- then yes, there are benefits. But that is not usually what people mean with the term alternative medicine.
But study after study has been debunking the claims for various vitamins, herbs, and anti-oxidants for preventing and treating various diseases.

The problem here is that "alternative medicine" is too broad a category to be meaningfully discussed. Is "alternative medicine" useful? That's like asking "Is eating (anything) good for you?" In the right amounts, of the right sorts, yes. But otherwise, the bad effects range from obesity to lethal poisoning.

Granted it's partly conventional medicine's fault for defining the terms as "us" and "all other." But the only way to rationally look at the issue is not to ask whether alternative medicine is, or ought to be, mainstream, but to ask which specific therapies are both useful and safe in which situations.

Interesting. I read your post immediately after reading this excellent fisking of the WSJ piece by Ann Althouse.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/01/dubious-wall-street-journal-opinion.html

Some good discussion in the comments there, too.

Dianne, I just read the piece by Ann Althouse and her debunking of the WSJ op-ed piece by Chopra, et. al. Wow!! What a howler.

Thanks for bringing it to our attention. I strongly recommend everyone read it.

BTW, what the heck is the WSJ doing in running -- on their opinion page, no less -- a piece by Chopra and company? Their editorial standards must be declining.

"HOWEVER . . . alternative medicine provides more than a placebo, because alternative medicine folks have the luxury of taking time to talk with their patients"

However, the dark side of this is that con artists and snake oil salesmen will take the time to cold read their marks and tell them what they want to hear.

pentamom and others are right. There are, indeed, treatments under the umbrella 'alternative medicine' that work.

For example, many herbs, obviously, do provide some sort of medical benefit. However, in the real world, such herbs actually do get tested by drug companies, and if they actually work, they, you know, get made into actual medication.

So there's a very slight possibility that any specific herb might have managed to avoid any medical scrutiny until now, and actually help with a condition you have. Of course, if it actually is medically active, it has a pretty good chance of having side effects that absolutely no one's studied, too.

It could even have side effects and not help you, like with a lot of people taking Saint John's Wart, some of whom have types of depression that it hasn't been even possibly shown to help, like dysthymia. But they'll get the side effects of it, which could make their depression worse. There's a reason the medical community frowns on people diagnosing and drugging themselves.

Likewise, accupuncture and accupressure do sometimes help people deal with pain. Considering that pain is, literally, a mental problem, it's a bit silly to claim it's a placebo. If it helps, it helps. OTOH, there are different type of pain, so of which doesn't it doesn't help at all. (1) Same with nausea. If someone can stop it by pushing on pressure point, hey, good for them. (The theory behind accupuncture is, however, totally wrong.)

Anti-oxidants, OTOH, are a failure. Cancer does not work that way. It was a plausible theory at the time, but that entire theory is wrong.

And homeopathy medicine is just damn stupid. I mean, honestly. Many alternative medicines do not work biologically, homeopathy violates the flipping laws of physics.

1) Incidentally, different types of pain remedies themselves have a medical value, in that doctors still don't understand 'pain' very well. Yes, they get the 'extreme heat sensor on skin activated' type pain, which is obviously transmitted through the nervous system just like the sense of touch, but not the types without obvious sources. So different pain remedies that work on different types of pain can be very helpful in attempting to figure out how that pain happens in the first place.

The reason that individuals choose alternative medicine is that it can work, when conventional Western medicine may not.

Two years ago I consulted a fertility doctor. I was told I almost certainly could not get pregnant. When I reminded the doctor that six months previously I had had a miscarriage, she attributed to a fluke. She also said that if by some chance I did get pregnant again, I almost certainly would not have a healthy pregnancy. She recommended IVF with a donor egg, at the cost of $20k.

After six weeks of working with an acupuncturist, taking Chinese herbs, and changing my diet, my monthly cycle regularized, as did my hormonal levels. I was pregnant with my healthy baby girl in two months. Maybe I happened to be in that tiny fraction of the populace, per the fertility doctor, who beat the odds. There is no way she could attribute it to Traditional Chinese Medicine. (Because the Chinese are complete idiots.)

I am all for double blind studies. But they rarely get funded in this area. Acupuncture apparently to increase the efficacy of IFV, but that is the only place it has been studied in a double blind fashion. Not surprisingly, because IVF is the fertility industry's cash cow. Why fund studies that would strip fertility docs of their major revenue source? Notably, the other studies on acupuncture and fertility generally come out of China, and they are therefore discounted.

Our current medical establishment is not unlike the military/industrial complex, with doctors and researchers studying those things that will bring them cash. I am not saying this is entirely malevolent--but systemically that is what happens. Needless to say, I will never again trust any individual Western doctor for my health care. I will get multiple opinions, from a wide variety of resources, before making any major medical decision.

My alternative doctor told my husband, years ago, to take Oil of Oregano capsules for a persistent infection which regular antibiotics hadn't helped. He recommended a reputable herbal company's product, not some special thing only he sold.

We didn't know anything about the product then. I've learned lots about it since. Here's one link; there's other information available:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/10/011011065609.htm

Essentially, this product is a safe, natural, easily produced alternative to traditional antibiotics, which has good efficacy rates and less side-effects than traditional antibiotics. In conjunction with some dietary changes it helped my husband when the regular doctor had told him to expect to have to take antibiotics every four to six months for the foreseeable future.

I respect that science still wants to study this, is hesitant to make sweeping conclusions, and will not recommend that people with serious bacterial infections rely on oil of oregano capsules. But for chronic infections of the UTI or similar type, something like this could be helpful, especially since it doesn't appear to kill off the intestinal flora or to produce the same antibiotic-resistance effect that traditional antibiotics do.

Would a mainstream doctor have recommended my husband try this? Hard to say, though none of the many he consulted for his infection ever did. I don't tend to see that as "greedy doctors in the pockets of big Pharma," though; I just think that traditional doctors don't have time to look into these products, and when presented with a patient who clearly has a bacterial infection will recommend a traditional antibiotic because they know what those will do.

Two words for every person who will use their anecdote about alternative medicines that are not clinically effective to try and prove the scientists wrong: Placebo effect.

If your alternative therapies are actually working for you: Great. You may be either a rare individual who can benefit from them, or experiencing a placebo effect that is encouraging your body to fix itself (this is most common when regarding herbal medication for mental disorders). But do not think that makes your therapies good medicine for the bulk of sufferers.

Two words for every person who will use their anecdote about alternative medicines that are not clinically effective to try and prove the scientists wrong: Placebo effect.

I have a very bad back. Came about as a result of several accidents in the course of a short month a-way back in 1990. Despite a vigorous exercise and diet regime my back occasionally goes out, accompanied by fairly incapacitating pain.

I used to do the "real" medicine thing: call my doctor who couldn't fit me in for a few days, but sent me to the ER where I'd wait for hours while "real" emergencies were treated, then was given high-strength muscle relaxants and anti-inflammatories and sent home, where I'd spend the next week on my back.

Then I wised up, went to an "alternative" doctor who is a bicycling buddy of mine. No prescriptions, one-third the cost, and I was up and active the next morning. Oh, and he managed to see me the same day my back went out...no worries.

So here's to the "Placebo effect." It's cheaper, faster, and more effective than what "real" doctors would have me do.

keh--What do you call "good medicine?" Western medicine told my mother to not breastfeed. Formula was more "scientific." Do you know who changed the culture regarding breastfeeding? A bunch of Catholic stay-at-home mothers!

Western medicine told millions of women to take HRT during menopause. Here's a business opportunity: let's create a disease model for a perfectly natural process. Let's medicate the hell out of it. And then, as a side benefit increase the cancer risk for millions of women. Oncologists win too!

Western medicine continues to tell millions of us to avoid the sun. Hello massive Vitamin D deficiency, increasing cancer and MS rates.

Given that it took millions of years for humans to evolve, one would think the current medical establishment would have some respect for natural processes, but I don't see much respect for the human body coming out of that bunch.

I may be an anecdote, and I will be until someone does a study. Unfortunately, I don't have the money to fund the study. It's tough enough to overthrow a paradigm when economic factors aren't at play; throw money into the mix, and you are completely screwed. Doesn't anybody remember Thomas Kuhn?

Susan writes: I am all for double blind studies. But they rarely get funded in this area. Acupuncture apparently to increase the efficacy of IFV, but that is the only place it has been studied in a double blind fashion.

Have you Googled "double blind acupuncture"? I believe there are more studies besides in-vitro fertilization. While acupuncture seems to have some efficacy against some types of pain, its benefit for many other applications is not strong.

Interestingly, recent studies suggest that placebo and 'real' acupuncture have about the same effect on IVF success. A randomized double blind comparison of real and placebo acupuncture in IVF treatment. Human Reproduction, Nov 13, 2008. Overall effect is questionable as well.

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2008/12/yet_another_acupuncture_metaanalysis_gar.php

TonyD: I was prescribed triamcinolone [for winter rash], which kept it under control just fine...but then a friend recommended shea butter, which works just as well for a fraction of the cost.

Jojoba oil works for me. Oily, fatty substances often make good moisturizers but may not have the "anti-itch" power of triamcinolone. Also, considering running a humidifier in the bedroom. Of course, neither shea butter nor jojoba oil are actually 'alt. med' treatments. Both suggested to me by 'mainstream' dermatologists.

I strongly suspect that most of the benefits attributed to complementary & alternate medicine derive from having more contact with the care givers and less with the actual treaments. But that idea isn't really an 'alternate' concept.

Oh, and this 'placebo effect' stuff - am I the only one who thinks scientisrs should be trying to find out why things happen, rather than making up labels for them that really mean 'I can't be bothered?'

I speak, by the way, as a scientist.

Pat: "This is a pet peeve of mine. Suppose a study finds that a treatment doesn't perform significantly better than placebo? What needs to be done then is to look at the people for whom it did work, and see if they can be readily identified."

That's called 'cherry picking'. It can be a legitimate practice or the last refuge of snake oil salesmen. For example, there are some sub-populations that can be identified as better responders to cancer treatments. Of course, in those cases there were either specific biochemical hypotheses subject to evaluation or a hint from additional statistical analyses that there actually could be an effect. Data mining and retesting hypotheses is pretty mainstream.

Of course, one can also keep looking forever to find subgroups on which a treatment works. This would of course be especially true for treatments that have no real effect or ones for which one has no clue about how to identify potential responders. If someone continues to push a treatments for which there are no demonstrated effects and no clue that a specific subpopulation actually exists, I'd say they've moved pretty far into 'woo-territory' (e.g. most of homeopathy).

Pat (in a second post): "Oh, and this 'placebo effect' stuff - am I the only one who thinks scientists should be trying to find out why things happen, rather than making up labels for them that really mean 'I can't be bothered?'

I speak, by the way, as a scientist."

Hmm... scientists can't be bothered...?
Do a search on "placebo" and "mechanisms" in medline. Most effects relate to stress and anxiety. There a lots of interesting things tied to emotion and health. The downside is that mental states are hard to manage and assess in experiments.

Re: "Western medicine" discouraging breastfeeding and advocating hormone replacement therapy. What Susan forgets to mention is that although conventional medical advice discouraged BFing and advocated HRT, medical studies published in conventional, peer-reviewed journals also debunked these practices. The 2002 Women's Health Initiative study changed the tune of pretty much every MD who cares for women. Breastfeeding is another case in point: although the women of La Leche League did a heck of a lot to change the way doctors thought of BFing, so did the multiple very good studies performed by scientists and physicians in showing the superiority of breastfeeding for infant nutrition.
There are no similar self-correcting mechanisms within alternative medicine. Patient self-reporting and anecdotal evidence are not good ways to establish efficacy- if "Western medicine" still relied on this highly inaccurate means to collect data, we'd still be bleeding people.

Ooops, last post was mine with a boo-boo... Here's what I meant to write:

While I am no against *alternative* medicine perse, my concern is that it has become an idol or "alternative religion" in certain Christian groups.

Susan
My distaste for Western medicine is that philosophically it doesn't begin from a standpoint of honoring natural processes. That's why it made the mistakes re: breastfeeding, HRT, and sunlight. Self correction is great, but it is better not to make mistakes in the first place.

Well, that's essentially what happened to preventive medicine, an area of medicine that has been entirely ignored as the health care system got hijacked by the health insurance system over the last few decades.

As people will not pay outrageous fees for medical care they can defer, the solution has been to completely ignore them. Thus resulting in people only showing up when they have actual life-threatening problems.

So of course medicine has reoriented towards providing 'solutions' instead of just providing 'health'. And working against the body instead of with it. As long as the system is set up where providing the least amount of medical care provides the most profit, it will just continue to get worse.

I'm not a big fan of 'alternative medicine' at all, hell, I think chiropractors are pretending to be doctors and really should be classified as 'masseuses'. (And the licensing is a lot cheaper, to boot.)

However, the fact people can't afford to walk into a doctor's office, complain of being tired, and diagnosed with a zinc deficiency means they're going to either a) wait until they enter some critical stage, whatever that is, and end up at the emergency room, or b) visit a crackpot alternative healer and get some herbs that might, in fact, have zinc in them.

It's really hard to condemn 'b' there, the health care system is so broken and has so focused on 'corrective' medicine, simply because that's the only place that the health insurance system has left any money or customers at all.

Western medicine goes through a process of self-correction, but it is frequently astonishingly slow, and it starts from a paradigm that tends to wish to control rather than work with the body. Further, studies are conducted by those who have the resources to conduct them, which means the areas of study tend to be those things that ensure a positive economic outcome for the medical industry. These factors make self correction even more difficult than in other areas of science. (Even in other branches of science, psychological and cultural factors can slow down the process of self correction. Recall how many centuries it took before the heliocentric universe was accepted.)

Of course, not everything "natural" is good--I'm not a cheerleader for syphilis--but working with natural processes that took millions of years to evolve almost certainly is better than working against them. Intuitively, breastfeeding makes sense. Intuitively, Botox seems like a bad idea. How long will it take Western medicine going to undergo self correction on that one?