Does anyone know where I can read an unbiased comparison of conventional and traditional medicine?
Saturday, January 28th, 2012 at
5:00 am
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Does anyone know where I can read an unbiased comparison of conventional and traditional medicine?”.
Filed under: Alternative Medicine
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
I don’t know but if you find it please e-mail me and let me know.
as for one of these answers
###History.
Why is conventional medicine conventional? Why is alternative medicine alternative?###
Are you admiting bias Weise?
####Why did drugs largely replace herbs?#### It did this in the alopathic profession. Herbs are widely used outside of this world wide.
###Why did germ theory replace humours?#### Germ theory is a good theory but note the word THEORY. It still hasn’t been conclusively proved and doesn’t explain why not everyone exposed to a new pathogen becomes sick.
####Why did homeopathy get discarded?#### Homeopathy has not been discarded. It is used by millions world wide and in some parts of the world works alongside conventional medicine.
###Why is infant mortality lower and life expectancy higher now?### Better obstretic care is responsible for more live births. Life expectancy is considerably higher because of Clean water, better living conditions better nutrition and better sanitiation. Medicine hasn’t extended life expectancy by anything like the margins of the other factors I have mentioned.
####In the end, people at large will always go with what works. Some people stick to the old methods, but they are in the minority.####
People are in fear and will go with the one that has market themsleves the best and put the fear of God into them. Why do 100′s millions of people continue to take statins even though they have terrible side effects? The latest research suggests they are mostly useless and unnecessary as atririal inflamation is what causes Cholesterol to cling to the arteries. changing your diet can massively reduce the tendencies for arteries to become inflamed.
Why do 40 million people take prozac world wide inspite of it being out performed by the medicines it replaced and having been shown in clinicla trial to be no better than placebo?
http://www.sntp.net/prozac/breggin_prozac_2.htm
Edit:
”You don’t know what the word "theory" means in science. We DO know why not everyone exposed to a pathogen gets sick. Innate immunity, autophagy, infectious dose, ect. Genetic susceptibility and blind chance.”
Ok then explain why it is called theory if it is fact?
I’m not trying to discredit germ theory at all. I’m just suggesting we don’t yet have all the answers. I forgot that being a scientist means what you don’t understand yet you don’t talk about or refuse to accept it exists because it means your theoretical model doesn’t work some times.
If that is how you do science you can keep it mate.
Q. What do you call a failed science graduate who can’t get a job?
A. A research scientist!
Edit2:
Gary, I respect you. But if you seriously believe that current research is completely without bias think again.
When you pay for tests of your own product and can choose who does it of course you are going to hire someone who makes it look favourable.
I used to work for an accountancy firm and the clients were attracted to their auditors because the auditior, supposedly independant, made their accounts look more favourable.
Look what happened to Enron and Arthur Anderson.
The rest of the Audit world didn’t say to much at the time because all of them had an Enron waiting to happen.
Edit3:
Quackwatch does indeed have lots of references but these can also tied up with speculation and opinion.
I would recommend you read the other websites as well as quackwatch.
Weise, you really must stop directly attacking me when I blog something that counters your arguments. You are starting to look childish. You should know I have an IQ of 138. I’m no genius but more inteligent than average. A little more respect is called for. So far you’ve only argued back about theoretical concepts. So here we go. No one has proven the theories of Gravity or evolution.
There is evidence supporting them but these still have to be conclusively proven.
I have no doubt that pathogens are an extremely large contributing factor causing disease at the very least. I am not saying that they don’t but there is still a lot to learn.
### A failed science graduate goes to med school###
Yeah I can believe that actually. For some reason doctors feel like they are scientists yet the term "medical Science" is actually an Oxymoron.
As for failed scientist you mis-understand what I mean. There are a lot of people hiding in Universities and research institutes who are academically gifted but have poor social interaction and or no business skill.
These people find it hard to get graduate jobs because the other skills are necessary in the real world. Consequently they continue down the track of academia because no one else will employ them.
As you said yourself these institutions don’t pay the best.
That is how you fail as a science graduate not with your grades.
####Edit: I’m "attacking" you because you are apparently scientifically illiterate. You clearly do not understand how science works or even what science is.###
This isn’t true at all. you are attacking me because I do not worship science in your image. I thought science was about exploring possibilities not excluding them?
###There is no proof in science. That is the realm of mathematics.### Thank you. But isn’t mathematics in the spectrum of science? Don’t you use maths to back up scientific theory?
###However, evolution, atoms, gravity, germs, ect. are all proven far beyond any reasonable doubt.##
I’ll agree with you on atoms as we can now manipulate sub atomic particles and have done experiments to split the atom. Germs can be seen with tools such as microscopes.
The jury is still out on evolution especially as the Darwinian tree of life theory is seriously being questioned by academics who actually believe in evolution.
There is no proof that gravitons exist. These are supposed sub atomic particles or energy fields which drive gravity. There is an invisible force anchoring us to the ground but no one has proved beyond reasonable doubt what makes that happen.
I’m sorry but you are going to have to accept there are somethings we simply do not understand. Gravity is a prime example of something which is clearly evident but not understood. nature has many of these little gifts.
It is my understanding that they are the same thing.
History.
Why is conventional medicine conventional? Why is alternative medicine alternative?
Why did drugs largely replace herbs? Why did germ theory replace humours? Why did homeopathy get discarded? Why is infant mortality lower and life expectancy higher now?
In the end, people at large will always go with what works. Some people stick to the old methods, but they are in the minority.
Edit: "Germ theory is a good theory but note the word THEORY. It still hasn’t been conclusively proved and doesn’t explain why not everyone exposed to a new pathogen becomes sick."
You don’t know what the word "theory" means in science. We DO know why not everyone exposed to a pathogen gets sick. Innate immunity, autophagy, infectious dose, ect. Genetic susceptibility and blind chance.
You think sympathetic magic works and germ theory is flawed. You lost any credibility you had left.
Apparently not understanding basic science is a prerequisite for practicing alternative medicine.
Edit: A scientific theory is an extremely well supported hypothesis that forms a framework for future experimentation. There is no higher level of support in science.
Ex. Atoms, evolution, gravity, ect.
I’m used to explaining this to creationists.
Infectious diseases are caused by pathogens. How anyone can doubt this at all if beyond me. There’s a lot we don’t know, but we do know why some people don’t get infected. We’ve known this for decades.
There is currently no known instance where germ theory fails. If you find one, you’d basically be guaranteed a Nobel Prize.
You also should know research is far, far more competitive than medicine. A failed science graduate goes to med school.
Edit: I’m "attacking" you because you are apparently scientifically illiterate. You clearly do not understand how science works or even what science is.
There is no proof in science. That is the realm of mathematics.
However, evolution, atoms, gravity, germs, ect. are all proven far beyond any reasonable doubt.
If you want an unbiased view, call an ambulance.
When it turns up, does it contain a stick waving shamen who’ll press a crystal to your forehead? Or does it contain a well qualified medic who whisks you off to a technologically advanced hospital with world class facilities and extremely proficient surgeons?
The proof is that any developed country looks down at alt med and treats it with the contempt such an outdated and scientifically impossible pastime deserves. Alt med is relegated to a few individuals who make a living with their slick sales pitch rather than any kind of results.
Hmmm. Seems obvious you won’t get it from the usual suspects who usually answer these things. The closest that you can come to "unbiased" if you are looking for studies that compare various substances is PubMed studies but even then it depends on who paid for the study and how well it was done.
Part of the problem with answering your question is that the words "traditional medicine" mean different things to different people. Is TCM [traditional Chinese medicine] the tradition that you are talking about? Ayurveda? Western herbal medicine? Holistic Nutrition?
At this point, there have been numerous studies proving the efficacy of various herbs and vitamins and such for many pathologies and we know the active ingredients in the various herbs etc.that are used and we know this through the regular scientific methods of testing so "conventional" and "traditional" medicines are dovetailing somewhat.
Basically, only a total ignoramus will claim that natural medicine is not evidence based at this point [though there are also ignoramuses who use things that are natural but not evidence-based]. For the most part, all of the authentic practicing physicians that I know keep up with studies as to what vitamins and supplements and herbs have been proven effective and which have not for various pathologies, but maybe it’s just that I know a better class of practitioners than most.
I assume that you mean "conventional" for western modern medicine, and traditional to mean natural or holistic medicine.
The history of medicine spans thousands of years and many cultures. It makes for very interesting reading. But it’s not all in one book, and it depends on how detailed you’d like to get. Some people like to cherry pick the parts they like or that support their bias and try to bury the parts that are inconvenient or unflattering. It’s often been said that the "winners" write the history books.
I was given some "official" version or other studying science in school, and it was extremely abbreviated. Everybody gets the same thing in North America. We’re taught that modern drugs are some form of technical evolution and we’re more or less brainwashed that this is "scientific" without really understanding that there is a bias here. Some of us are really surprised to learn that drug companies pick the brains of traditional aboriginal healers in various parts of the world to find out what plants and substances they use to cure conditions so that they can synthesize something that can be patented for profit. And in the meantime we’re supposed to disparage these traditional healing systems as "primitive". That’s gratitude for you.
This is an area you have to research yourself and bring in your own objectivity (whatever that means). And you can do it by "condition". Research the pharmaceutical drug most commonly prescribed for an ailment, and look at the contraindications and negative (side) effects. Research the holistic treatments in the various disciplines, whether it’s herbal, homeopathic, TCM etc.
You can take charge of your own health and well-being.
The present generation is now considered to be the first one in a long time that will not have the life expectancy of the previous one.
Conventional medicine is already unbiased as its based on scientific method. Alternative medicine is very biased because its based on anecdotes and dollars. So you are starting with a false analogy – you can’t compare the two – you’re not comparing apples with apples.
——-
EDIT: Yes I didn’t word that very well – perhaps I should have said that ‘Conventional medicine is already unbiased in the sense that its based on scientific method.’ Scientific method is designed to remove as much potential bias as possible, and is the best method we have of getting to the truth of any prospect. Anecdotal evidence is not, as it is subject to a huge amount of bias, either deliberate or not.
All sources are biased as humans are emotional and imperfect. Scientists can be just as biased about their pet hypothesis as any of the Alties. However, the difference is that the scientific method itself, while not perfect, is the most unbiased objective way of investigating the natural world that we have yet devised. Science is also self correcting. Good ideas rise to the top, and those that fail, fall to the bottom. Alties cling to bad ideas (eg Homeopathy) no matter what the evidence shows for PURELY ideological reasons.
There are lots of resources out there on the interwebs these days, some good, some awful. The difference between most of the sites supporting what you are calling "conventional" medicine and AltMed is that objective scientific facts form the bedrock of medicine. Superstition, conjecture and overactive imaginations forms the evidence for AltMed.
Occam’s razor always applies….the idea that requires you to make the fewest unproven assumptions, and fits best with what we already have discovered about the world is most likely correct. (eg again…homeopathy)
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org has become the "go to" source for the scientific arguments. Quackwatch has tons of references as well..(and wait for someone to attack Steve Barret instead the information presented)
By all means visit places like NaturalNews or Curezone….but compare the quality of the information that you get there.
A good source will provide you with lots of references to information to support the opinions expressed. A bad source will just express opinions and testimonials…..then offer to sell you something.
In the US, it’s very hard to find such comparisons. The whole medical industry is a marketing program for the drug industry, and the regulators are defining what is an effective treatment. Most of the decisions are based on litigation avoidance. If conventional medicine says prescribe this drug for this problem, it is very difficult for a doctor to stray from that approach, without the risk of a lawsuit down the road. And many of the traditional, or alternative medical approaches are ridiculed by the conventional medical lobby. And they are the ones who are funding the studies that the regulators rely on, so there are very few authoritative studies supporting traditional medicine. For some strange reason, nobody in power places any significance on the fact that cultures who practice traditional medicine seem to have better overall health, and live longer.