So ... you took an antifungal agent and got better, right? That would be science helping you out there. Nobody's arguing that there aren't shitty doctors (then again, candidiasis is difficult to test for), just crappy, untested treatments.

I agree with that, and know quite a few physicians who would say the same thing (lots of doctors in the family). Where it starts to get hazy is in the area of snake oils, etc.

For most people, a change of diet can have a fantastic effect on the body. I would never underestimate the positive effect of a proper diet, from what I've seen.

Those would actually be the people I would want to protect from snake oil the most. Homeopathy, which is basically water + lies, would be a good example. If you sell that water for $9, and it's still regular water, but you tell them it has "memories" of something that will heal them, then you're selling snake oil. I wouldn't want to see some poor bastard who had cancer feel better from the placebo effect, and then lose all his money trying to "cure" himself. That seems mean.

But yeah, if you get an oriental massage, and your shoulder stops aching, who would I be to object? Whatever works is right.

Do what works? Great - just make sure it's actually working and not just masking symptoms.

There are methods out there that we know just don't work but people still use them. Homeopathy comes to mind.

I personally use alternative medicine more than the standard one and it works very well.

I keep getting scary messages of what happened to those who were unfortunate enough to fall into clutches of doctors. One woman from among our friends made herself gradually a bad malfunction of thyroid gland, because of a really unhealthy diet and life style. Her eyes were for a longer time terribly pulled out of head, almost as if they should fall out, plus some hyperactivity and weird behavior. Finally doctors got her and hospitalized her. But they didn't know what to do. They guessed between inferior function of a thyroid gland, and exaggerated function. They guessed wrongly, although the symptoms were obvious. (exaggerated function, if I remember) The incorrect medicine made that woman much worse, so she was taken to another hospital, where the doctors finally gave her a correct medicine and she's now recovering. The hospital she was in is otherwise well known for it's professionals on heart surgery. But obviously, being an expert on only one organ is not enough. Vivat holistic medicine!

Our family needs the doctor mainly for paperwork.

You're in your 20s! Of course it works very well. Not doing anything would work very well.

 

I have less of a problem with holistic/alternative medicine than homeopathy.

Something about "the weaker the soluton - the stronger the medicine" bothers me.

What's your postion, Luminon?

My stance is, that homeopathy is not a chemical medicine, but "informatic". The water or other medium eventually is infused by a certain agens by long-termed, intense regular shaking, which doesn't occur in nature. The water is thereby infused with information, which is stored on molecular level. I'll now rummage through my memory a little, so it might be unprecise, but the information is reputedly stored in the angles between atoms and molecules of the water.
Cells of the body react on this information, not on the non-present chemicals, this is how the nerve and endocrine systems are stimulated and "instructed" to act in a certain way. If they manage to react, and if that reaction is sufficient, the patient should get better.
One my source states, that a certain purity and sensitivity of body is needed for the homeopathy to work. My vegetarianic mother for example is so sensitive, that she can just smell a cork of wine bottle and she says she's drunk. But I doubt that an average dissipated American will be so sensitive.

We're living louger, but we're not healthier. The science which makes us live longer also brings more problems which make sure that we will always need it. We're in a pretty absurd situation, if someone invents a medicine on something, the process of making it, packing, distributing and disposing (and don't forget the swallowing it) damages the nature (including ourelves) in other ways, so that it's like fighting a hydra. Sometimes I think that the goal is not to make people healthy, but to make money and make people dependent. In that case, it would give sense. This is how marketing works. If there is not a market, create it. If the market declines, stimulate it.
 

Allergies weren't classified, probably because there was no need to classify them. It is pretty easy to tell a person having allergia from a person without it, so I really doubt that allergies could ever escape doctors' attention. I live in a rural area where taking care of livestock always required to make and store hay every year, and my grandmother says that in these times she never heard of anyone having allergia, ever. Now it's taken almost as a normal thing. I guess something is wrong.

 Alternative medicine can be a good thing in some areas. Mostly in the United States, in areas of preventative medicine.

 

The AMA does not push preventative medicine much at all. Instead it pushes training for reactive medicine. Preventative medicine is standard in most of the rest of the developed world.

 

My friend made a visit to Japan and was told he needed to fix his diet, get more exercise, and stop being lazy. He was also directed to drink more green tea, as it functions as a metabolic stimulant. In addition, they told him to eat less sugary products, and use the tea as a replacement for soda with meals.

 

While this seems common sense, it helps to tell people rather than prescribing mass quantities of drugs after a problem has surfaced instead of looking to solve behavioral problems that lead to illnesses.

 

There is no "debate" however about the things he was being told to do having an effect. The difference is approach to how medicine is practiced. Behaviors that lead to illness should be focused on, when the U.S. has an epidemic of entirely preventable diseases. 

 

 

 

I do disagree strongly with any "cures" that have unknown backgrounds, unknown effects, or are simply marketed and hyped as an "answer". This includes drugs pushed through by pharmaceutical companies that only have one study done in-house and then market it directly to people, after gaining approval with no human studies. It also includes folk remedies with no basis on reality, and "miracle" plants/drugs/solutions.

 

There is no such thing as a "toxin" cleaner, for example. That is what the liver does.

Lets not confuse marketing with scientific method. Drug companies ARE NOT concerned with results. They are concerned with sales. Scientists with a conscience who adhere to method dont rush.

I have always been concerned with the FINE PRINT in drug commercials. I have also been concerned with drug lobbyists who pay off both parties to protect them. MY PROBLEM is not scientific method. My problem is human greed, be it the alchemists or drug companies who don't give a shit who they kill.

I will never have a problem with scientific method though. I think human nature is the problem. You have a battle of wishful thinking vs pragmatism and the greedy who exploit both.

Exteenze is a dick pill, but if you look at the fine print, which they never make front page. This is no different than the dicks who convinced these DEAD vacationers that by boiling themselves they would be at peace. I wonder if these DEAD vacationers would have done it if the disclosure was BILLBOARD SIZED saying, "Entering this tent may result in heat stroke or death"