It's Time We Did Something

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 12:38am

Of course drugs are quicker and more effective in ACUTE conditions! You cannot compare them because they are apples and oranges. Alternative therapies work on an entirely different principle - they work to get to the root cause of the illness.

Did you read the entire article here?

<a href="http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/21/alternative_conventional.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/21/alternative_conventional.htm</a>

and here:

<a href="http://www.mercola.com/2000/may/14/doctor_accidents.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.mercola.com/2000/may/14/doctor_accidents.htm</a>

As for whether prescription and otc drugs are more dangerous than natural supplements/therapies, that is a no-brainer.

[quote]
Some 56,000 people end up in the emergency room each year from misuse of acetaminophen, the main ingredient in Tylenol, alone...A widely publicized report saying that as many as 98,000 people die each year in the United States from medical errors is conservative, and the number is probably much larger than that. The estimate by the Institute of Medicine (IOM) is low because it looked only at deaths of patients at hospitals. The Institute is a private, nonprofit organization that provides health policy advice under a congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences.

Janet M. Corrigan is the IOM's director of health care services. The Institute is a private, nonprofit organization that provides health policy advice under a congressional charter to the National Academy of Sciences. She told reporters at a Capitol Hill briefing May 8 that the study did not look at medical-error deaths at nursing homes, emergency rooms or in doctors' offices. The mortality estimates are low also because most of the information was based on medical record reviews...

[/quote]

NO WAY would the FDA allow alternative therapies to remain legal if they had those kinds of statistics! They took trytophan & Ma Huang off the market for about 10, that's T-E-N casualties!

So yeah, no question, overall, alternative therapies are MUCH SAFER. MUCH. SAFER.

UCLAri · January 16, 2007, 12:52am

[quote]
Some 56,000 people end up in the emergency room each year from misuse of acetaminophen, the main ingredient in Tylenol, alone...

[/quote]

This number is meaningless without knowing the per capita usage and failure rate of the drug.

Plus, that's misuse, not proper use. How many are put into the hospital with proper use is more important.

Similarly, 98,000 a year isn't that high in per capita terms-- which are the only meaningful numbers in this case.

[quote]
So yeah, no question, overall, alternative therapies are MUCH SAFER. MUCH. SAFER.

[/quote]

I haven't really seen any data that convinces me either way, so I'm on the fence still. For one, I think a lot of it may be safer in usage, but less effective, which may produce a dangerous placebo effect when proper treatment is necessary.

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 12:54am

for educational purposes:

from <a href="http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/The_A_to_Zs_of_Alternative_Medicine/artid/62%5B/url%5D">http://www.insurance.com/Article.aspx/The_A_to_Zs_of_Alternative_Medicine/artid/62</a>

[quote]
What is the difference between conventional and alternative medicine?
Conventional and alternative medicines share the same goal--they seek to cure patients. However, they go about treating the patient's symptoms differently. Alternative medicine treats the whole patient by considering the patient's physical, mental, and spiritual health. Alternative medicine will often stimulate the body's natural recuperative powers--the immune system--to assist in the healing process.

Conventional medicine often uses medications that have an immediate impact on the patient's symptoms. These are often manufactured drugs with well-known short-term side effects and lesser-known long-term side effects. Alternative medicine is more apt to treat with natural substances such as zinc to activate the immune system. The side effects of these medications are often less severe than those of conventional medications.

Alternative medicine often works best when combined with conventional medicine. In some cases, you may have little choice--although alternative medicine may work well over time, your condition may require immediate treatment, and more conventional methods of medicine may be your only option.

Is alternative medicine really safe?
Although you may think that alternative medicine has no long-term track record, it has actually been around for a long time. Many of the medications and practices considered nontraditional today have their roots in traditional African, American, Asian, and European medicine. Because of their widespread popularity overseas, some alternative medications used in the United States may have already been tested abroad, even though the Food and Drug Administration has not yet tested nor approved them here. Keep in mind, too, that medication is just one small part of alternative medicine. Just as popular are physical, spiritual, and mental therapies that are noninvasive and don't require you to take medication at all.

[/quote]

from <a href="http://www.holisticonline.com/Alt_Medicine/altmed_differences.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.holisticonline.com/Alt_Medicine/altmed_differences.htm</a>

[quote]
Standard, conventional, or orthodox medicine, also called allopathy, defines health as the absence of disease. This definition is based on a negative. In contrast, holistic medicine concurs with the definition of health used by the World Health Organization (WHO), which posits that it is a state of complete physical, mental, and social well-being...The allopathic and holistic definitions of health differ greatly in regard to the diagnosis and treatment of illness. People who use conventional medicine usually do not seek treatment until they become ill; there is little emphasis on preventive treatment. The main causes of illness are considered to be pathogens-bacteria or viruses-or biochemical imbalances. Scientific tests are often used in diagnosis. Drugs, surgery, and radiation are among the key tools for dealing with the problems.

Holistic medicine, in contrast, focuses on preventing illness and maintaining health. It views health as a balance of body systems - mental, emotional, and spiritual, as well as physical. All aspects of a person are seen as interrelated - a principle called holism, meaning "state of wholeness." Any disharmony is thought to stress the body and perhaps lead to sickness. To fight disease, alternative medicine uses a wide range of therapies to bolster the body's own defenses and restore balance. The best illustration of this approach is the fact that ancient Chinese doctors were paid only when their patients were healthy, not if they became ill.

Natural medicine, which follows a holistic approach, views illness and disease as an imbalance of the mind and body that is expressed on the physical, emotional, and mental levels of a person. Although allopathy does recognize that many physical symptoms have mental components (for example, emotional stress might promote an ulcer or chronic headaches), its approach is generally to suppress the symptoms, both physical and psychological. Natural medicine assesses the symptoms as a sign or reflection of a deeper instability within the person, and it tries to restore the physical and mental harmony that will then alleviate the symptoms.

Holistic medicine recognizes that the human body is superbly equipped to resist disease and heal injuries. But when disease does take hold, or an injury occurs, the first instinct in holistic healing is to see what might be done to strengthen those natural resistance and healing agents so they can act against the disease more effectively. Results are not expected to occur overnight. But neither are they expected to occur at the expense of dangerous side effects...

[/quote]

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 12:55am

[quote]
In 1999,the Center for Disease Control and Prevention reported more then 600,000 hospital admissions and 700,000 emergency-room visits resulting from medications that were correctly administered but nonetheless produced side effects - from intestinal bleeding to seizures to even death."

[/quote]

NOTE the words 'correctly administered.'

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 1:00am

<a href="http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm</a>

[quote]
...This article in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) is the best article I have ever seen written in the published literature documenting the tragedy of the traditional medical paradigm.

If you want to keep updated on issues like this click here to sign up for my free newsletter.

This information is a followup of the Institute of Medicine report which hit the papers in December of last year, but the data was hard to reference as it was not in peer-reviewed journal. Now it is published in JAMA which is the most widely circulated medical periodical in the world.

The author is Dr. Barbara Starfield of the Johns Hopkins School of Hygiene and Public Health and she desribes how the US health care system may contribute to poor health.

ALL THESE ARE DEATHS PER YEAR:

<pre><code>* 12,000 -- unnecessary surgery
* 7,000 -- medication errors in hospitals
* 20,000 -- other errors in hospitals
* 80,000 -- infections in hospitals
* 106,000 -- non-error, negative effects of drugs
</code></pre>

These total to 225,000 deaths per year from iatrogenic causes!!

What does the word iatrogenic mean? This term is defined as induced in a patient by a physician's activity, manner, or therapy. Used especially of a complication of treatment.

Dr. Starfield offers several warnings in interpreting these numbers:

<pre><code>* First, most of the data are derived from studies in hospitalized patients.
* Second, these estimates are for deaths only and do not include negative effects that are associated with disability or discomfort.
* Third, the estimates of death due to error are lower than those in the IOM report.
</code></pre>

If the higher estimates are used, the deaths due to iatrogenic causes would range from 230,000 to 284,000. In any case, 225,000 deaths per year constitutes the third leading cause of death in the United States, after deaths from heart disease and cancer. Even if these figures are overestimated, there is a wide margin between these numbers of deaths and the next leading cause of death (cerebrovascular disease).

Another analysis concluded that between 4% and 18% of consecutive patients experience negative effects in outpatient settings,with:

<pre><code>* 116 million extra physician visits
* 77 million extra prescriptions
* 17 million emergency department visits
* 8 million hospitalizations
* 3 million long-term admissions
* 199,000 additional deaths
* $77 billion in extra costs
</code></pre>

The high cost of the health care system is considered to be a deficit, but seems to be tolerated under the assumption that better health results from more expensive care.

However, evidence from a few studies indicates that as many as 20% to 30% of patients receive inappropriate care.

An estimated 44,000 to 98,000 among them die each year as a result of medical errors...

[/quote]

UCLAri · January 16, 2007, 1:01am

Of course.

But I do find it funny that your source of holistic medicine's efficacy is just as biased as allopaths are...

And yes, 600,000 is a lot. But how many is that per capita? Gross numbers are meaningless.

And at least the allopathic medical field has plenty of published data. I don't see the same from the alternative medicine. Not nearly as much.

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 1:19am

Wow, those are feeble comments. These figures came from the allopathic medicine's very own journals!!! And the site that cites them is run by an allopathic doc who happens to be involved in complementary medicine. Sure, Dr. Mercola's biased. I have a love-hate relationship with him, actually. He's one of the best at taking the FDA/AMA's own numbers and compiling them. He backs everything up. I challenge you to find any holes in HIS documentation! However, I don't agree with all of his interpretations. For example, he's a bit down on vegans. He's a proponent of the caveman diet. BLECH!! But that is all irrelevant, since the figures ARE official FDA/AMA figures.

<a href="http://www.mercola.com/2003/nov/26/death_by_medicine.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.mercola.com/2003/nov/26/death_by_medicine.htm</a>

[quote]
By Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, Dorothy Smith PhD

ABSTRACT

A definitive review and close reading of medical peer-review journals, and government health statistics shows that American medicine frequently causes more harm than good. The number of people having in-hospital, adverse drug reactions (ADR) to prescribed medicine is 2.2 million.1 Dr. Richard Besser, of the CDC, in 1995, said the number of unnecessary antibiotics prescribed annually for viral infections was 20 million. Dr. Besser, in 2003, now refers to tens of millions of unnecessary antibiotics.2, 2a

The number of unnecessary medical and surgical procedures performed annually is 7.5 million.3 The number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million.4 The total number of iatrogenic deaths shown in the following table is 783,936. It is evident that the American medical system is the leading cause of death and injury in the United States. The 2001 heart disease annual death rate is 699,697; the annual cancer death rate, 553,251.5

TABLES AND FIGURES (see Section on Statistical Tables and Figures, below, for exposition)

ANNUAL PHYSICAL AND ECONOMIC COST OF MEDICAL INTERVENTION
Condition Deaths Cost Author
Adverse Drug Reactions 106,000 $12 billion Lazarou1 Suh49
Medical error 98,000 $2 billion IOM6
Bedsores 115,000 $55 billion Xakellis7 Barczak8
Infection 88,000 $5 billion Weinstein9 MMWR10
Malnutrition 108,800 -------- Nurses Coalition11
Outpatients 199,000 $77 billion Starfield12 Weingart112
Unnecessary Procedures 37,136 $122 billion HCUP3,13
Surgery-Related 32,000 $9 billion AHRQ85

TOTAL
783,936 $282 billion

We could have an even higher death rate by using Dr. Lucien Leape?s 1997 medical and drug error rate of 3 million. 14 Multiplied by the fatality rate of 14% (that Leape used in 199416 we arrive at an annual death rate of 420,000 for drug errors and medical errors combined. If we put this number in place of Lazorou?s 106,000 drug errors and the Institute of Medicine?s (IOM) 98,000 medical errors, we could add another 216,000 deaths making a total of 999,936 deaths annually.
Condition Deaths Cost Author
ADR/med error 420,000 $200 billion Leape 199714

TOTAL
999,936

ANNUAL UNNECESSARY MEDICAL EVENTS STATISTICS
Unnecessary Events People Affected Iatrogenic Events
Hospitalization 8.9 million4 1.78 million16
Procedures 7.5 million3 1.3 million40

TOTAL
16.4 million 3.08 million

The enumerating of unnecessary medical events is very important in our analysis. Any medical procedure that is invasive and not necessary must be considered as part of the larger iatrogenic picture. Unfortunately, cause and effect go unmonitored. The figures on unnecessary events represent people (?patients?) who are thrust into a dangerous healthcare system. They are helpless victims. Each one of these 16.4 million lives is being affected in a way that could have a fatal consequence. Simply entering a hospital could result in the following:

1.

<pre><code> In 16.4 million people, 2.1% chance of a serious adverse drug reaction,1 (186,000)
</code></pre>

2.

<pre><code> In 16.4 million people, 5-6% chance of acquiring a nosocomial infection,9 (489,500)
</code></pre>

3.

<pre><code> In16.4 million people, 4-36% chance of having an iatrogenic injury in hospital (medical error and adverse drug reactions),16 (1.78 million)
</code></pre>

4.

<pre><code> In 16.4 million people, 17% chance of a procedure error,40 (1.3 million)
</code></pre>

All the statistics above represent a one-year time span. Imagine the numbers over a ten-year period. Working with the most conservative figures from our statistics we project the following 10-year death rates.

TEN-YEAR DEATH RATES FOR MEDICAL INTERVENTION
7,841,360 (7.8 million)
Condition 10-Year Deaths Author
Adverse Drug Reaction 1.06 million (1)
Medical error 0.98 million (6)
Bedsores 1.15 million (7,8)
Nosocomial Infection 0.88 million (9,10)
Malnutrition 1.09 million (11)
Outpatients 1.99 million (12, 112)
Unnecessary Procedures 371,360 (3,13)
Surgery-related 320,000 (85)

TOTAL

Our projected statistic of 7.8 million iatrogenic deaths is more than all the casualties from wars that America has fought in its entire history...<snip>...Never before have the complete statistics on the multiple causes of iatrogenesis been combined in one paper. Medical science amasses tens of thousands of papers annually--each one a tiny fragment of the whole picture. To look at only one piece and try to understand the benefits and risks is to stand one inch away from an elephant and describe everything about it. You have to pull back to reveal the complete picture, such as we have done here. Each specialty, each division of medicine, keeps their own records and data on morbidity and mortality like pieces of a puzzle. But the numbers and statistics were always hiding in plain sight....

[/quote]
</snip>

I recommend reading the whole article. It's very enlightening!

UCLAri · January 16, 2007, 1:24am

Actually, my comments aren't feeble. They're statistically skeptical.

Per capita figures are all that matter. And since we don't have the "holistic" (or whatever you want to call it) figures, we can't say that alternative treatments are safer or better.

Furthermore, in order for these figures to be meaningful, we have to run statistical models to see how many more would have likely died without treatment. The authors also don't separate the confounding variable of how many people go into the hospitals already sick. We have to remove that variable for any sort of meaningful analysis.

I know, I know. How dare I impugn a doctor's ability to do research. Well hell, these are the same guys who tested Phenphen and found it safe, so hey...

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 1:31am

You can figure out the per capita yourself easily. Just apply the number of people in the US.

NO WAY are there anywhere remotely that many deaths from alternative therapies or the AMD/FDA would have them all outlawed. I know people who own health food stores and they've told me of raids of supplements by the FDA. They seize supplements for every little thing.

Which guys tested Phenphen?

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 1:33am

[quote]
The authors also don't separate the confounding variable of how many people go into the hospitals already sick. We have to remove that variable for any sort of meaningful analysis.

[/quote]

???

They were ALL sick, else they wouldn't have been given medications!

UCLAri · January 16, 2007, 1:34am

lealdragon,

[quote]
You can figure out the per capita yourself easily. Just apply the number of people in the US.

[/quote]

Well...no. You have to figure out how many people sought specific treatments and do all sorts of regressions to really figure out what's going on here. It'd actually be a pretty significant statistical undertaking.

For one, it's important to ask how many deaths are correctly attributed, how many had aggravating factors, and how many were actually doctor negligence.

Then you have to separate all kinds of variables to really get a good picture of what's going on.

[quote]
NO WAY are there anywhere remotely that many deaths from alternative therapies or the AMD/FDA would have them all outlawed.

[/quote]

Not necessarily. For one, it's a far less regulated field than conventional medicine. Furthermore, very little good statistical work has been done on a lot of it.

We also have to ask how many people are being harmed by the placebo effect of some herbal remedies?

This is not a simple question or comparison at all.

UCLAri · January 16, 2007, 1:36am

[quote]
???

They were ALL sick, else they wouldn't have been given medications!

[/quote]

Not always. There is unnecessary medication going on, hypochondria, false diagnoses, etc.

Furthermore, how many of those already sick people would have died without care? How many of them would have died had they used alternative treatments?

Unless we answer that, we can't say anything for sure.

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 1:38am

Skeptics of alternative medicine are fond of saying that it doesn't work. Doctors are fond of saying 'It won't do you any good, but if it makes you feel better, then it can't hurt, because it is worthless anyway.' I used to sell a natural supplement and I can't tell you how many times my customers told me that asked their doc if they could take it and he said that.

Sorry, but I think a little common sense is in order here. Either the alternative therapies are worthless and do NOTHING or they do SOMETHING. They would have to do SOMETHING in order to have any side effects, right? A side effect is a SOMETHING!

Ya can't have it both ways.

UCLAri · January 16, 2007, 1:43am

A false sense of security is something. And it's incredibly dangerous.

But yes, they oftentimes do something. But the problem is that we are incredibly hazy still on what that something is. Ingesting ground up cobra liver might have a powerful effect on something or other, but without a double blind test, we don't really know what that is.

And a lot of this stuff is incredibly new and untested, meaning that while plenty of people accept the wisdom of the Chinese or whomever, we don't actually know what it does yet.

The question isn't always whether it does anything at all (though that sometimes is a question) but whether it does anything worthwhile at all. And there's not a lot of good documentation on a lot of it.

And yes, some of this is to be blamed on myopic drug companies. But a lot is also the fact that we can't know if some of these things work because we don't have the tools to test them yet.

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 1:43am

If you want to scoff at those numbers I posted, well, fine. But I suggest you look at the references before you disregard them. Sure, there are many variables at stake here, not the least of which is the interaction of multiple drugs in the same system. Yet another nasty effect of powerful drugs. They are a double-edged sword: they provide quick, powerful effects but sometimes at a hefty risk.

With all due respect, you clearly don't know much about alternative therapies. It's been nice talking to you but I gotta go. I recommend you do some research on your own if you're interested in the subject. A good place to start is the links I posted a few posts back, about the difference between the holistic approach and the allopathic approach. Your comments show that you are still trying to fit holistic medicine in the same configuration as allopathic medicine, and it's like trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. It just doesn't work.

UCLAri · January 16, 2007, 1:44am

No, I'm trying to fit holistic medicine into the double blind tests and scientific scrutiny hole.

There's a difference.

[quote]
If you want to scoff at those numbers I posted, well, fine.

[/quote]

I'm not scoffing at the numbers. I believe them. I'm scoffing at how meaningful they are. Gross numbers, especially presented so bare-bones, are rarely meaningful on their own. For goodness' sake, I do econometrics, I know how easy it is to lie with numbers.

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 1:55am

[quote]
I'm trying to fit holistic medicine into the double blind tests and scientific scrutiny hole.

[/quote]

It cannot be done. It's a completely different model.

[quote]
A false sense of security is something. And it's incredibly dangerous.

[/quote]

Sure it can be dangerous. Taking drugs and having surgery can be dangerous too. But both can also be healing. There are risks either way.

[quote]
...but without a double blind test, we don't really know what that is. And a lot of this stuff is incredibly new and untested, meaning that while plenty of people accept the wisdom of the Chinese or whomever, we don't actually know what it does yet...not a lot of good documentation on a lot of it. And yes, some of this is to be blamed on myopic drug companies. But a lot is also the fact that we can't know if some of these things work because we don't have the tools to test them yet.

[/quote]

I agree with you on this. But by its very nature it will be difficult, if not impossible, to do double-blind tests on holistic treatment, because researchers, by their very nature, try to pinpoint a single ingredient that was the magic element that caused the reaction (usually so they can then patent it). But when people get healed after using holistic treatments, they have often used these treatments HOLISTICALLY, meaning that it was a complete, synergistic program of diet, supplements, exercise, relaxation, etc. in addition to perhaps some specialized remedies. It's just not easy to pinpoint.

So I do agree that it's probably a combination of factors at work here.

However, my point all along has NEVER been to PROVE that any one alternative therapy would work the same when compared to its allopathic counterpart. It just doesn't work that way. Each therapy is a piece of a bigger picture. (That's what 'holistic' means.)

My point all along has been that allopathic doctors should at least be knowlegeable of these therapies. They should know which ones might have side effects and which ones are harmless at worst. And people should be made aware that such remedies do exist, they are not proven, but if the patient wants to pursue them, that is their perogative.

Edit: Studies could be done in which patients who are employing multiple holistic therapies are evaluated on that basis, instead of trying to isolate each individual piece of the therapy. In other words, evaluate whether the therapy AS A WHOLE is effective. That's the only way to approach it, imo. Some work has been done in this manner regarding heart disease. It has been shown that lifestyle changes (low fat diet, exercise, stress reduction) DOES have a powerful effect on heart disease. If such an approach were applied to cancer, I think they would find results. But who would fund such a study?

UCLAri · January 16, 2007, 2:05am

[quote]
Some work has been done in this manner regarding heart disease. It has been shown that lifestyle changes (low fat diet, exercise, stress reduction) DOES have a powerful effect on heart disease.

[/quote]

This one's a no-brainer. This has been known for almost a century.

[quote]
If such an approach were applied to cancer, I think they would find results. But who would fund such a study?

[/quote]

The American Cancer Society, maybe?

Actually, it would be possible to fit a holistic medicine peg into the hole. Just have each herb or factor isolated. One group takes herb Y, another group does this, another group does that.

Then you make each test double blind.

But I don't know an allopath on the planet who would say "don't exercise and reduce fat in your diet." That's just not isolated to the realm of holistic medicine.

It's the so-called "mystic medicine" and herbs that I question. And they can be tested pretty well. Sadly, a lot of the "psychic surgeon" types aren't willing to undergo testing.

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 2:23am

[quote]
The American Cancer Society, maybe?

[/quote]

No way. They make WAY too much $$ off of cancer. See my above posts about the books on the politics of disease. Very enlightening reading. And quite logical if you think about it. I'm sure most cancer researchers are quite sincere. No, it is the industry I am referring to. Nothing conspiratorial about it. It's pure economics.

Case in point:

In the 1970s, research was done on a promising Amazon Rainforest herb called Graviola. Tests done in vitro showed that it destroyed cancer cells more efficiently than chemo. But, they could not isolate the effective ingredient. It only worked when the whole herb was used, meaning they would not be able to patent it since one cannot patent a plant. So they shelved the project.

Some 20 years later, one of the researchers filed a lawsuit demanding that the test results be made available to the public. (Evidently his conscience got the best of him, or maybe he had a loved one who had cancer and was desperate.) He won the suit and now the Graviola research is available. I knew someone who is a practitioner who gave me some info on the study which she got from some practitioner's medical library.

Does Graviola destroy cancer cells in the human body? That is subject to speculation, since in vitro tests are often promising but not necessarily indicative of what happens in the actual living organism. Nevertheless, some people take Graviola herb as part of a cancer prevention program. If it weren't for that lawsuit, they would not have that freedom. That drug company clearly put profits first. If they truly wanted to help people, they would have made their findings available so that people could decide for themselves. Or, at the very least, other researchers might be able to continue where they left off. But no. They hoarded the knowledge.

[quote]
Actually, it would be possible to fit a holistic medicine peg into the hole. Just have each herb or factor isolated. One group takes herb Y, another group does this, another group does that. Then you make each test double blind.

[/quote]

Perhaps you didn't see my previous post about holistic therapies usually being a combination of a number of different healing modalities. It is true that some herbs have very strong actions and would show up in a double blind study - vitamin C, beta glucan, coenzyme Q10, hawthorne berry, goldenseal, echinacea, and many others. But when you get into cancer research it is usually a combination of many things because it is a highly complex issue.

Speaking of coQ10, btw, that is another excellent case in point. There is a tremendous amount of research on this, yet very few doctors tell their heart patients about it. How many heart surgeries could be avoided if people knew about these safe and effective options?

[quote]
But I don't know an allopath on the planet who would say "don't exercise and reduce fat in your diet." That's just not isolated to the realm of holistic medicine.

[/quote]

That is true NOW. But 25 years ago diet and exercise were barely given lip service. The effectiveness of heart disease has enjoyed the most acknowledgment by the allopathic medical community. I would like to see cancer follow suit. It's beginning to. It is becoming better known that antioxidant-rich fruits and veggies reduce the risk of cancer. I knew this 25 years ago. Did you?

[quote]
It's the so-called "mystic medicine" and herbs that I question. And they can be tested pretty well. Sadly, a lot of the "psychic surgeon" types aren't willing to undergo testing.

[/quote]

What do you mean by 'mystic medicine?' Psychic surgeons are in the category of shamans and Christian faith healers who report miraculous healings by laying on of hands and prayer. Those represent a very small percentage of what is termed 'holistic healing.' Most holistic therapists have respectable offices and follow very specific protocols.

It really is a fascinating subject. You might want to investigate it further.

lealdragon · January 16, 2007, 2:39am

Here is but one of the alternative remedies you are so quick to label 'snake oil':

<a href="http://faculty.washington.edu/%7Eely/coenzq10abs.html%5B/url%5D">http://faculty.washington.edu/~ely/coenzq10abs.html</a>

(above link has references)

Studies at the University of Texas at Austin showed that 75 percent of heart patients have severe deficiencies of CoQ10 in heart tissue compared with healthy individuals...

<a href="http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/coenzyme-q10/NS_patient-coenzymeq10%5B/url%5D">http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/coenzyme-q10/NS_patient-coenzymeq10</a>

<a href="http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/coenzyme-q10-heart-disease.html%5B/url%5D">http://chinese-school.netfirms.com/coenzyme-q10-heart-disease.html</a>

Over the years, I have asked probably at least a dozen people with heart disease whether their docs told them about CoQ10. So far not a single one said yes.

WHY are docs not telling their heart patients about CoQ10???

Thread		Replies	Views
A Proposal College Confidential Community college-confidential-cafe	4	30	April 16, 2021
Peace in Iraq College Confidential Community college-confidential-cafe	71	122	April 16, 2021
Will your kids go to Iraq? College Confidential Community college-confidential-cafe	111	170	April 16, 2021
Gwb College Confidential Community college-confidential-cafe	112	170	April 17, 2021
First Editorial to Demand Reid's Resignation College Confidential Community college-confidential-cafe	1	44	April 17, 2021

It's Time We Did Something

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

It's Time We Did Something

Related topics

POPULAR STATES

SEARCH SAT SCORES

SEARCH ACT SCORES

SEARCH GPA’S

CONNECT WITH US