The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

Do you know(9)? Options
will
Posted: Friday, January 27, 2017 6:12:26 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,130
Neurons: 4,640
Yikes!

I think we’re still arguing – at length – over an undefined middle ground. So…

I dislike the term ‘Western”, but it does at least highlight the standard of modern medicine used in the West compared to the developing world where Traditional medicine is (unfortunately) still widespread and often the only option available. The facts speak for themselves.

Hope123 wrote:
I agreed that mainstream medicine has advanced very rapidly and does wonders. But I do not agree that mainstream is the end all and be all of medical treatment. And there is always room for new ideas and treatments so open-mindedness is an attribute.

New ideas and open-mindedness that survive clinical trials are and will continue to be the advanced wonders we call mainstream medicine.

New ideas and open-mindedness that havenot gone through, or have not survived clinical trials fall under the umbrella of ‘alternative’ – and lets be honest, the majority of these ideas aren’t new at all, the majority are actually based on pre-scientific theories on the theme of Vitalism.

Hope123 wrote:
What I ever only wanted you to acknowledge is that the complementary care MD doctors (except for chiropractors) are just mainstream MDs with more letters behind their names that make them a type of specialist in their chosen field such as body chemistry/nutrition or chelation. They are licenced and have every right to practise medicine as the MD who studies no further. You have resisted that and instead mention all other kinds of practices I know nothing about.

Licensed by whom?
Far from resisting, I have repeated ad nauseam that mainstream medicine includes and overlaps with numerous specialist fields that are not pharmaceutical or surgical – all supported by scientific empiricism and strictly regulated and licensed. I’ve consistently enforced this distinction since your original comment of “Will, I hope you haven't thrown out all alternative care with the quacks.”

On the face of it we seem to agree, but we still haven’t got to the bottom of why you continue to make distinctions with terms like complimentary or alternative.

For example: Chelation is a valid scientifically proven intervention for acute heavy metal poisoning. It is recognised as a high risk intervention and is thus subject to high levels of clinical proof. Correct use of chelation therapy is definitively mainstream.

However, there are NO licensed or approved ‘complimentary’ uses for chelation therapy.

Despite that, proponents of alternative and complimentary medicine continue to make unsubstantiated claims about chelation, including its use for the treatment of cardiovascular disease, autism and even cancer. Even in the areas where chelation has some scientific basis – heavy metal poisoning-- the level of inappropriate and unnecessary treatment is something of an unknown, because alternative care is not subject to the same degree of scientific rigour and regulation.

Here’s a typical example of quackery piggybacking off sound science
, literally the first result from an internet search.

Quote:
Clinical experience has demonstrated that chelation has been used successfully in millions of patients with heavy metal toxicity, coronary artery disease and peripheral vascular disease.

Science in green. Quackery in red

Hope123 wrote:
A new disorder was discovered in 2006 - but my family doctor refused to consider or even listen to my self diagnosis (I had read about it) but fortunately my MD ACAM was up on it, listened to me, and got me treatment and in to see a specialist for an accurate diagnosis.

Eosinophilic esophagitis was diagnosed, researched and clinically verified by (and is most effectively treated by) the same scientific empiricism that is the standard of mainstream medicine. The fact that your GP failed to diagnose a relatively new disease is unfortunate but not surprising. It’s good that a separate MD was more up to date and referred you to, I assume, a mainstream specialist for, I assume, an accurate science based diagnosis.

For the record, ACAM is an acronym for a membership association, not a medical qualification. And correctly diagnosing one condition (as laudable as that is) does not justify making other false and unsubstantiated claims.

Hope123 wrote:
I'll take just one of the categories you mention - here's what a physiatrist does - my daughter-in-law sees one for chronic pain caused by injury - they still use drugs and invasive procedures.

I don’t understand your point here. It sounds like you are repeating the either-or myth of Mainstream verses Alternative. Mainstream is any combination of treatments with a scientific basis. Post surgical physiotherapy is a good example.

And besides, are you claiming (alternative) chelation therapy is not an invasive procedure involving drugs? A synthetic solution of EDTA injected into the bloodstream, often over prolonged periods, sounds pretty invasive to me. Especially considering the absence of any evidence for clinical effectiveness and the increasing evidence for potential harm.

Hope123 wrote:
In your car analogy, if... prevention.

So you want to restructure society… now that really is a holistic approach. Mainstream medicine is largely focused on the successes we’ve enjoyed since the golden era of germ theory, but more emphasis is being put on prevention – including vaccination. Good science is still the driving force.

Life expectancy, child mortality rates and survival rates all continue to improve year on year. Something is working… and there’s little to suggest it has anything to do with alternatives to evidence based medicine. Whistle

Hope123 wrote:
Most people who have turned to complementary medicine have done so because mainstream medicine failed them

It can only be claimed – or even established – that mainstream medicine has failed exactly because mainstream medicine is accountable to objective empiricism. Mainstream medicine can know when it has failed and when it succeeds because it exposes itself to constant rigorous examination, with the express purpose of establishing best standard.

Alternative medicine by definition does not meet these standards and is largely anecdote. Anecdotal evidence has its place in science, but it’s a starting point only and does not validate evidence.

Excuse my frankness here, this is no reference to your particular case, I have no desire to diminish your subjective experience: with anecdote alone, we could just as well conclude that prolonged ill health is caused by alternative treatments such as chelation therapy. Without scientific empiricism, we simply can’t know in a meaningful sense either way.

Hope123 wrote:
Mainstream MDs do not get many hours in nutrition instruction

Which is why mainstream medicine has specialist (science based) Dietitians, a title that in most countries can only be used by those who have met specified professional requirements. In the United Kingdom, Australia, parts of Canada, and most US states, the term nutritionist is not legally protected, any alternative quack can call themselves a Nutritionist and advise all manner of potentially harmful ‘natural’ remedies and supplements, without one iota of training.

Hope123 wrote:

Again, I don’t know what your point is.
This is how mainstream medicine works; it starts with a hypothesis and proceeds through numerous phases where the hypothesis is either supported, rejected or advised for further research.
This is opposed to presenting a hypothesis (vertebral subluxions for example), skipping the clinical trails and setting up a practice to x-ray, scan and manipulate until the patient runs out of money or regresses to the mean. Whistle

Hope123 wrote:
Strokes and Chiropractic - You don't really want to go there do you? Versus Medical Error and Drugs

Neck manipulation is associated with about one death per 1 million people due to cervical artery dissection. Notice the word association, not conclusively the cause.

By comparison, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) cause 153 stroke deaths per 1 million people (and GI complications and Congestive Heart Failure)


You’ve again missed the fundamental point: it’s not ‘by comparison’.

If there were a mainstream treatment with the same, albeit small, evidence of associated risk, coupled with no proven effect for the condition in question, it would be withdrawn. Risk-benefit analysis in mainstream medicine is initially and continuously evaluated by science and enforced by law.

One death per 1 million for chiropractic neck manipulation is a best guess, because objective risk-benefit analysis doesn’t exist, because the scientific data doesn’t exist. It’s not comparable to anything, let alone science based evidence.

Hospitalization for any reason carries a high risk of MRSA infection, while the risk of MRSA in Acupuncture is low, but they are not comparable in any meaningful way. Acupuncture contains nothing from the set that makes up reasons for hospitalization – acupuncture is not an alternative to A&E because of the lower MRSA risk, or for any other reason.

.
will
Posted: Friday, January 27, 2017 6:15:31 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,130
Neurons: 4,640
I wrote the most of the above in my lunch break yesterday, but was just now talking to a colleague about where mainstream becomes alternative, and where alternative becomes quackery. She used her Yoga class as an example:

The benefit of exercise, stretching and relaxation is all based on good science. She refuses to do any inversion poses, it hurts her neck, feels unsafe and there is no good scientific evidence that it does more good than harm; this would be ‘alternative’. Her instructor insists inversions are an essential part of the class and that there are benefits to circulation and energy flows; this is quackery.

BTW. If we're going to continue this discussion, which I'm happy to do, could we both make a effort from now on to be less verbose. Some of what we've both said is waffle and about half is repetition.

.
Hope123
Posted: Friday, January 27, 2017 10:33:39 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,270
Neurons: 47,528
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Will,

I should just say I agree with this statement and leave it there - Quote Will - "What you describe should be standard in healthcare. It’s absence sounds to me more like shortcomings in ‘legitimate’ healthcare, rather than any credit due to ‘alternative’ care." My emphases.

I have been telling you what IS, not what the theories are, in Canada. My care in FL was mainstream except for chiropractic, but I heard about similar experiences from people in 'extra' care to make me think it was a similar attitude in the US.

But I will answer two of your questions - sorry, I cannot be more succinct even though I do try.

:::::

Why do I make distinctions?

I am not the one who makes a distinction between kinds of doctors. It is the doctors themselves. Both groups. Mainstream often harasses Complementary but so far the docs I have been treated by won their legal cases, albeit at great legal-fee cost. Complementary continues to follow their protocols and wishes mainstream would listen.

One minor example - T3 and T4 versus straight T4 for thyroid treatment - both saying the other is wrong. You can find all kinds of arguments both ways on the internet. With the patient (me) caught in the middle between my family MD and my Chelation MD. Fortunately I now have found a great young family doc (from Argentina) who is willing to work with him and me. She is an MD CCFP - emergency medicine. I think she trained at U of T. (Toronto). I find the younger docs are not so set in their ways.

Metal toxicity has never been in the purview of mainstream medicine during diagnosis of chronic illness. Mercury is so toxic it stays in the blood only for a short time and then is shunted to the bones and other organs including the brain. Therefore, when they do not find it in the blood if they even think to look, they think mercury is not a problem. But in spite of my telling every new doctor - "My problems started when I had a mercury exposure" not one of them even considered that might be the problem for all those years. And once you have a toxic metal, it is like a magnet for others. Every time you are exposed to lead, aluminum, nickel, breathe contaminated air, or get a flu shot with thimerosal (mercury), your poisoning gets worse over the years.

Chelation is not offered by strictly maimstream MDs - not here in Canada anyhow. Since my chelation doctor who practised on both sides of the border retired, there are only two clinics now in the whole Toronto/Barrie area in Ontario. I drive an hour and a half one way for my treatments now. Others drive a lot farther.

At these clinics blood tests were conducted regularly to monitor for any adverse effects - I never had any problems in over 75 treatments over the years and the beginning drugs were even more powerful than EDTA. Blood pressure and circulation were checked twice per visit - pre and post. Blood tests were done often - cholesterol and other blood compounds, blood sugar, nuritional values, kidney and organ function i.e. all the normal blood tests usually done. All monitored carefully.

They know that the drugs have to be administered slowly and cautiously and other substances are added for efficacy and to lower risk. Each treatment is individualized. I got a drug added that they purchased specifically for me. Obviously only trained doctors and personnel should do it. Training to practise chelation therapy is done by ACAM.

There are clinical observations that show value for "off-label" uses of this treatment, people feel they are being helped, have tangible test results to prove it, and are willing to pay for it themselves. Mainstream physicians use drugs "off-label" all the time. So in your definition, any off-label usage must be quackery too.

Actually I see my care as "the best of both worlds". I don't have to choose or compare efficacy of both. For example, I use an herb that has prevented infection many times, but when it doesn't work, I need antibiotics. These docs I have been discussing were the only ones willing to take the time to sort out my problems - consults that often went on a lot longer than they were being paid for as they tried to sort out my myriad of problems and to think outside the box. Others may have wanted to help but said they didn't know how.

I am now living instead of spending my life just trying to survive. To them I shall be forever grateful.


Licensed by whom?

The MDs I talked about were licensed by the Canadian Medical Association or CMA. Consultations by those licensed doctors (and hospital stays) are paid for by the Ontario Hospital Insurance Plan. Except for seniors, drugs are paid by private insurance plans. My plan covers me in the drugs category for toxic metal poisoning. This treatment has been recognized since the 1940’s. This all means that my treatments and doctors are sanctioned by the wonderful universal healthcare plan Canada has.

As well as ACAM, two of my MDs also had FRCP or Fellowship of the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Canada. One had been in Internal Medicine. The other had been in Gastroenterology until he found he could not help his daughter with mainstream medicine. She had severe food allergy the same as I did, caused by her chemical exposures at art college.

You may not be old enough to know that at one point most MD allergists did not recognize that, except for peanut caused anaphylaxis, there was such a thing as food allergy, but that was what I ran into.

That GI doc graduated first in his class at U of T med school. Yet when in 1980 he tried sublingual preparations for allergy (NOT homeopathy), he was legally challenged by the CMA - for being ahead of his time. A similar practice has been taken up only in the last couple of years by Pharma.

It is now recognized in the last few years that food proteins cross react with pollen proteins and that is why someone may be allergic to many foods.

::::

As for the EE, it was not just one doctor who did not keep up with the latest medical journals as my chelation doctor had and even I as a lay person had read about - it was several who were not up on at least a two year old idea. Including a snarky MD at emerg in FL: 'Why are you bothering us with this? Just go home, take this Valium, and eat your food." You hysterical female.

::

I am two weeks behind on my Uni course on Immunology so am going to concentrate on that now instead of procrastinating on TFD.






Elitism is the slur directed at merit by mediocrity. -Sydney J. Harris, journalist (14 Sep 1917-1986)
will
Posted: Saturday, January 28, 2017 11:06:22 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 6/29/2009
Posts: 1,130
Neurons: 4,640
Okay. Thanks for your thoughts, it’s been interesting. Here’s to your continued good health.

Hope123
Posted: Saturday, January 28, 2017 12:00:11 PM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 3/23/2015
Posts: 8,270
Neurons: 47,528
Location: Burlington, Ontario, Canada
:)

Salud to you!

Elitism is the slur directed at merit by mediocrity. -Sydney J. Harris, journalist (14 Sep 1917-1986)
Users browsing this topic
Guest


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS
Forum Terms and Guidelines | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2008-2018 Farlex, Inc. All rights reserved.