The “Alternative Medicine” scam

[shawmutt]

One of my pet peeves involves pseudoscience and the scams perpetuated by the quacks that try to pass it off as real science. The most heinous of these scams involves “natural” or “alternative” medicine. Some of these frauds are chiropractory, homeopathy, acupuncture, faith healing, the supplement industry—basically anything that tries to pass as a legitimate medicine without actually having any scientific studies to back them up. I am all for finding new medicines and methods for improving our lives and making us healthier. Ideally what I would like to see is "alternative medicine" follow the scientific method and set up rigorous studies to prove their efficacy. To be sure, there are a few studies here and there, but they can hardly be called scientific. At best they are preliminary studies.

When the further studies are done, tightening the controls of the previous studies, perceived results disappear. One study that I would like to submit compares "real" acupuncture to "fake" acupuncture--both were shown to have the same effect. However, instead of admitting defeat, the alternative medicine frauds simply rely on the older, less controlled studies--or worse, create their own pseudoscientific studies.

While discussing this issue with a friend he brought up the placebo effect. If folks think the alternative medicine is working, and therefore it does work, what’s the harm? That’s a very common sentiment—what’s the harm? I believe there is a lot of harm in apathy of alternative medicine, and was delighted to learn about a website that shared my belief.

I offer the website as substantial evidence for my premise:

What's The Harm?

[Hurt]

Dang, I was just contemplating the exact some concept of the placebo effect earlier yesterday. I'll make a response tomorrow, about to sleep, now. Very complicated for me to make a strong position on either side.. and I'm usually decisive! :/

[jose]

Since most illness is made better or worse by our own thoughts, if you think something is going to make you better, it probably will, and vice versa

[grandpa]

Quote by: jose Since most illness is made better or worse by our own thoughts, if you think something is going to make you better, it probably will, and vice versa

I hear rat poison can cure the common cold.

Anyway, there is some truth to what you say. But it's also true that some things are just dangerous. As for the validity of "alternative medicine," that ultimately depends on what it is being discussed, how it is used, and who is using it.

Grandpa h.

[LazyGun]

I would, broadly speaking agree with you Shawmutt, and that is an interesting link you have provided. One should, however, never underestimate the power of the placebo effect in the healing process, and I recently rewatched an interesting discussion between Richard Dawkins and Nicholas Humphreys on this very topic, which you may find of interest if you have not already seen it.

Richard Dawkins interviews Nicholas Humphrey | Smashing Telly - A hand picked TV channel

[commonsense]

¡Saludos José!
¡Que bien a tener la oportunidad a escribir en español! Soy estadounidense.
Estudie en España brevemente y he viajado un poco allá pero no conosco el sud. Asistí a la exclusiva Universidad de Cantabria. ¿De donde vienes tú?
Me siento que lo estoy perdiendo mi español porque nunca lo practico.
Me gustaria mucho escribirte mas si quieres. Cuando estuve alla, me quedaba con una mujer y me preparo "cangrejo de lunas de miel". Ella hirvio el cangrejo, saco la carne de la pinzas y puso vino blanco y un huevo y agrego todo dentro del carapazon y creo una mixtura, pero se me olvidio como ella preparo el huevo... no recuerdo si lo hirvio antes de agregarlo o si lo puso crudo dentro de la mixtura tibia despues. ?Te gusta cocinar? Me encanto mucho el jamon y los fiambres alla. !tambien el gazpacho!

Anyway, back to the topic...
I checked the site provided and I think one's guide should be common sense !
I am one to be very suspicious of commercial drug preparations and invasive treatments where benign natural methods should first be given the chance to work.
Case in point:
I went to the emergency room with bloody urine and a feverish feeling. A cat scan identified a kidney stone supposedly of a size, dimension and location that, according to a urologist, was nigh impossible to pass on its own. They recommended a shock wave treatment to break the stone. I investigated and found that the Mayo clinic reports adverse effects of this shock wave (extracorporeal lithotripsy) to the nearby more sensitive pancreas. It seems patients having received this treatment exhibit much higher incidence of pancreatic cancer and diminished insulin production.

I was told I had a month or so to schedule the treatment before the backup caused by the blockage of the stone would injure the kidney. I researched natural methods online and began self treatment ingesting frequent swigs of organic apple cider vinegar, doses of olive oil and constant lemon water.
I realize that medically, it is not believed that this high dose of acidity translates to an acidic condition downstream of the kidney sufficient to alter a calcyoxylate stone, but however it happened, this medically-determined overly large, naturally impassable stone emerged intact on its own in less than two weeks with absolutely no discomfort! Later sonogram confirmed everything was back to normal. I had avoided a potentially harmful radical treatment that had the stone not passed on its own I would have reluctantly submitted to.

I am usually very dilligent about starting my day with large amonts of water and drink plenty throughout the day, but that particular summer I traveled a lot and interrupted my usual preventative irrigation routine. Its funny how things work because I had no reason to believe that I was susceptible to them, even previously thinking to myself "well, at least thats one ailment I wont have to worry about because I drink so much water". I watch many travel documentaries about various underdeveloped countries, and its funny how often the local people seem so preoccupied with the kidneys with their preventative herbal remedies. Maybe b/c access to clean water is more difficult through the course of a day they are more common...

Also, I believe in vitamin therapy, within reason, and subscribe to the theories of many "alternative doctors" here in the U.S. (more accurately called "complementary physicians) who are trained conventional western allopaths who eschew many of the chemical-based treatments proffered by drug companies in favor of vitamins and herbs. Of course, they believe that both have their place and will use conventional methods where superior.
As far as "scientific evidence" goes, one (in my opinion isolated) positive aspect of socialized medicine in europe is that a practical approach is used regarding complementary medicine because vitamin therapy is cheaper than drugs and since they have epidemiological control over large populations they can accurately track their effectiveness and employ the ones that work.
Im pretty sure that certain fairly high doses of certain vitamins and minerals like C and zinc and many others are confirmed as reliable preventative methods for common illness and there are some confirmed therapeutic doses of vitamins as well.
Also, in cases of congenital spine deformities like scoliosis, I think constant manipulations from birth are helpful... but sudden chiropractic treatments can strain "weak points" in particular individuals that might never have become strokes, or small abcesses etc that might never have ruptured causing spinal meningitis as a result of chiropractic adjustments. These are just bad luck or shoddy pre-treatment screening.

[ikillu]

All science is real science. It just depends on where that science is in its stage of development. I'm sure, 70 years ago, had such a debate forum existed, someone would have posted something very similar to your post only where you put "alternative medicine", they would have put "psychology". Now, a hundred years later, psychology has earned more respect because the structure of the scientific method has been more aptly applied.

The same is the case with alternative medicine. There is a good article that addresses the limitations that current scientific study of alternative medicine faces, mostly regarding structure of definitions and studies. I think once these details are hammered out, the study of alternative medicine will take off, hopefully in a positive direction. I'd post it, but since this is my first post, it won't let me. I'll post the link in a second post.

Shawmutt, I am confused by the logic of parts of your post You say:

Quote by: shawmutt One of my pet peeves involves pseudoscience and the scams perpetuated by the quacks that try to pass it off as real science.

Quote by: shawmutt I am all for finding new medicines and methods for improving our lives and making us healthier. Ideally what I would like to see is "alternative medicine" follow the scientific method and set up rigorous studies to prove their efficacy.

Can we really call alternative medicine a sham and scam and the people who support it "quacks" when admittedly it is simply lacking scientific structure. At this moment, the facts are that if the studies done on BOTH sides of the fence had proper method and structure, we could determine a lot more regarding the efficacy of alternative medicine therapies.

Until then, we can only believe it works or does not work. We can't even begin to start pointing fingers at placebo effect or cooky folks yet.

[ikillu]

Here's that link:

Massage Therapy Articles || Bioenergy Research: The Capacity to Heal

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: shawmutt One of my pet peeves involves pseudoscience and the scams perpetuated by the quacks that try to pass it off as real science. The most heinous of these scams involves “natural” or “alternative” medicine. Some of these frauds are chiropractory, homeopathy, acupuncture, faith healing, the supplement industry—basically anything that tries to pass as a legitimate medicine without actually having any scientific studies to back them up. I am all for finding new medicines and methods for improving our lives and making us healthier. Ideally what I would like to see is "alternative medicine" follow the scientific method and set up rigorous studies to prove their efficacy. To be sure, there are a few studies here and there, but they can hardly be called scientific. At best they are preliminary studies. When the further studies are done, tightening the controls of the previous studies, perceived results disappear. One study that I would like to submit compares "real" acupuncture to "fake" acupuncture--both were shown to have the same effect. However, instead of admitting defeat, the alternative medicine frauds simply rely on the older, less controlled studies--or worse, create their own pseudoscientific studies. While discussing this issue with a friend he brought up the placebo effect. If folks think the alternative medicine is working, and therefore it does work, what’s the harm? That’s a very common sentiment—what’s the harm? I believe there is a lot of harm in apathy of alternative medicine, and was delighted to learn about a website that shared my belief. I offer the website as substantial evidence for my premise: What's The Harm?

I tend to agree in premise, but some things, like supplements for instance, many of which go through clinical trials. A great deal do not, but a great deal of "legitimate" medications do not as well.

[Charlatan]

And why have these alternative medicines not been tested? Because they don't make the industry money. If they were supposed to work like they are, then they would have surely been tested now, but, seeing as how doctors don't reccommend them all that often, instead adivising of other more 'tested' methods, they are clearly out to supply more expensive treatments, often using technology they have developed.

At the dawn of medicine they should have tested these methods, as they were the quickest to test. Why then did they go for more involved methods? Maybe it was because they didn't believe in 'old wives tales' and preferred to start with something complex. Maybe it was because they were not into treating normal conditions, but rather more disasterous ailments, using their own brand of chemicals. Maybe it was because they didn't see the point in testing what was readily available. But the fact that they still have not tested it, even at highschool level, means that they are now realising that they can treat it in some way with other more expesive means.

I suggest charities do some cheap testing on people, but then they might not treat it in time, and the now established methods are probably going to work, so why take the chance of testing on someone afflicted with said disease. If the charities use some of their big payments to do some remedial testing on people they might be able to find an affordable cure, meaning that they could save on their funds. Think of a charity that doesn't have enough for medicines, and people come in still needing medicine. They could test it on peopl e that they cannot afford to give things out to.

Under universal health care though this will not be possible, and if universal health care comes in people will be able to get their medicines they need. But, seeing as how that is not used in the States, then I suggest that they take some time out of their busy schedule and test on people that they cannot treat conventionally and catalogue their results for the sake of cheap affordable medicine.

[Dadoo]

As a professional patient, I have been offered many alternative medicines and techniques to reinforce the standard western approach. The main difference I find, aside from techniques is that Eastern medicine is generally ongoing and proactive, with an accent on prevention. Western meds tend to approach illness in a reactive way, with an accent on protocol adherence, based on a Doctor's (or more) opinion and subsequent diagnosis.
Both work for certain ailments. I've not had a bad acupuncture session nor a bad radiation session, ever.
I believe, and subsequently find to be true, that belief systems and intention of the patient will most surely affect the efficacy of any form of healthcare.
My wife is Asian, and used accupuncture and pressure to assuage a Bell's palsy attack. It worked in 2 days, perfectly. Conversely, she had employed 10mg prednisone x7 days, prior, with minimal effect.
If you believe in a system, it will work more efficiently. If you do not, don't utilize that plan. There are charlatans and quacks in all medical/ healthcare circles. I've met my share.

You Heal thy self,
Dadoo

[Cruella]

This is an excellent website on the matter of "bad" science and the media reporting thereof: Bad Science » Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science column from the Guardian and more….

Incidentally, in a scientific study, anecdotes are not evidence.

[commonsense]

ikillu ...
I get frequent massages and believe they have many therapeutic benefits.
What do you know about "Rolfing" ? I think it would appeal to me...

The Rolf Institute of Structural Integration

[Rortykiller]

Seriously, shaw, this is OFFENSIVE! We know who you work for, you've already been found out. Stop brainwashing people into thinking synthetic non-natural chemicals are somehow better for human beings than the natural chemicals they evolved with!


commonsense, rolfing is the only reason my mom can walk today, after being hit by a guy on a bike and falling into a ditch. On the other hand my parents most prevalent health problem is kidney stones and gallstones, caused by the ingestion of too much sucralose (fake sugar substitute stuff). Of course, the FAA and their paid sponsors go around coming up with propaganda that chemically engineered products are better than natural alternatives.

I mean shaw, seriously, do they pay you to post here?

[ikillu]

Quote by: commonsense What do you know about "Rolfing" ? I think it would appeal to me...

Hey common, I am not intensely familiar with Rolfing, but I am an ex-massage therapist turned Qi Gong therapist, so I do have some experience with it. My massage therapy instructor was trained in Rolfing and I had the opportunity to undergo one session. Two words...IN-TENSE. Okay, so that's one word. But it was intense. I like fluffy massages, because I'm very sensitive, so it wasn't for me, but if you're looking for some serious body alterations, it is a great method.

I have also heard stories of people experiencing great emotional releases from Rolfing. I think it is one of the more holistic forms of bodywork out there today. Hope that helps!

[Rortykiller]

http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls, interesting live broadcast right now with a neurosurgeon named Russell Blaylock, M.D. author of Excitotoxins: The Taste That Kills and The Blaylock Wellness Report.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: grandpa As for the validity of "alternative medicine," that ultimately depends on what it is being discussed, how it is used, and who is using it.

I'm mainly referring to practices such as chiropractory, homeopathy, etc. Essentially any practice or medicine that is more faith based than evidence based.

Quote by: LazyGun One should, however, never underestimate the power of the placebo effect in the healing process...

I watched the movie, and found a few disagreements. The placebo effect should not be relied on for healing illness. Furthermore, relying on a placebo effect can be dangerous for genuinely sick people. Professor Humphrey, a psychologist, not a medical doctor, also seems to be a big believer in the mind's ability to cure disease. A nice doctor and positive thoughts doesn't cure cancer.

Quote by: commonsense I checked the site provided and I think one's guide should be common sense

Common sense is hard to come by in the world of quackery.

natural methods...

The risks of your "natural methods" are infections, kidney damage, and even death. Any procedure has risks--whether it's a "benign natural method" or an evidence based medical treatment. What I glean from your anecdote is that you had a bias against the medical procedure, and are now using post hoc reasoning to justify your decision. I'm happy you avoided the recommended procedure, but your anecdote is not evidence against the medical procedure, or the medical establishment.

This also highlights an issue I have with "alternative medicine". With mainstream medicine, you are made aware of the possible complications resulting from the procedure or medicine. "Alternative medicine" offers no such warnings, only promises.

Now for some clarifications:

...complementary physicians

Complementary to what?

allopath

What do you consider an allopath?

...who eschew many of the chemical-based treatments proffered by drug companies in favor of vitamins and herbs.

First of all, Vitamins and herbs are chemical-based treatments. The problem is that supplement companies try to pass off these vitamins and herbs as "natural" or some such nonsense. "Natural" is supposed to imply "healthier". Do you know what else is "natural"? Methyl mercury--that's "natural". Lead--that's "natural". Both are deadly at low doses. "Natural" is a useless term when dealing with health care.

Let's discuss "chemical-based" treatments by talking about a very common one--aspirin. Researchers took an herb, willow bark extract, studied its components, purified the beneficial component, and sells the component in a safe, effective, pure form. When you take a 325 mg tablet of aspirin you know what you are getting. When you buy willow bark in a "natural foods" store and chew on it a bit, you have no idea and no guarantee of the safety, purity, or efficacy of that "natural" herb.

Im pretty sure that certain fairly high doses of certain vitamins and minerals like C and zinc and many others are confirmed as reliable preventative methods for common illness and there are some confirmed therapeutic doses of vitamins as well.

What exactly are these "common illnesses" you are referring to?

In any case, there are peer-reviewed articles stating otherwise. Extra water soluble vitamins in the body are peed out. Extra oil soluble vitamins are stored in the body. Some, like vitamin A, are toxic when allowed to build up in the system. By the way, some studies suggest that excess vitamin C can cause kidney stones

Also, in cases of congenital spine deformities like scoliosis, I think constant manipulations from birth are helpful

There are no studies proving this.

Quote by: ikillu It just depends on where that science is in its stage of development. I'm sure, 70 years ago, had such a debate forum existed, someone would have posted something very similar to your post only where you put "alternative medicine", they would have put "psychology". Now, a hundred years later, psychology has earned more respect because the structure of the scientific method has been more aptly applied. The same is the case with alternative medicine. There is a good article that addresses the limitations that current scientific study of alternative medicine faces, mostly regarding structure of definitions and studies. I think once these details are hammered out, the study of alternative medicine will take off, hopefully in a positive direction. I'd post it, but since this is my first post, it won't let me. I'll post the link in a second post.

This is a straw man. Most "alternative medicine" has been around for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They still remain faith-based rather than evidence-based methods. Any well constructed study of these faith-based methods, such as homeopathy, acupuncture, etc. has always resulted in the alternative medicine having the same, or worse, effect than the placebo. That's when the scam starts, and the quacks making money off of the scams start tap dancing and making their own publications.

Can we really call alternative medicine a sham and scam and the people who support it "quacks" when admittedly it is simply lacking scientific structure.

It is a sham because it lacks scientific structure, yet the quacks that support it pretend it is scientifically sound.

At this moment, the facts are that if the studies done on BOTH sides of the fence had proper method and structure, we could determine a lot more regarding the efficacy of alternative medicine therapies. Until then, we can only believe it works or does not work. We can't even begin to start pointing fingers at placebo effect or cooky folks yet.

This is another straw man. Many well designed studies have been done on alternative medicine (I think I like the sound of faith-based medicine better), always resulting in a negative result for the faith-based medicine. Instead of admitting defeat, the quacks simply start their own pseudoscientific magazines and publish articles there--as evidenced by the link you provided.

Quote by: Chaossaber314 I tend to agree in premise, but some things, like supplements for instance, many of which go through clinical trials. A great deal do not, but a great deal of "legitimate" medications do not as well.

Can you name one medication that you consider legitimate that did not go through clinical trials? I can name some supplements--like every one that has the tiny letters on the bottom of the TV screen that says "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." I work 3rd shift, I see a lot of those

Quote by: Charlatan And why have these alternative medicines not been tested? Because they don't make the industry money.

Um, what?

Quote by: nih.gov Estimates of 1997 out-of-pocket expenditures by Americans of all ages for alternative therapies--including herbal products, high-dose vitamins, therapy-specific books and classes, diet products, and professional services--range from $27 billion to $34.4 billion nationally.

http://ods.od.nih.gov/pubs/gao-01-1129.pdf

That was over 10 years ago. I'm sure that amount has increased substantially over a decade.

Maybe it was because they didn't believe in 'old wives tales' and preferred to start with something complex. Maybe it was because they were not into treating normal conditions, but rather more disastrous ailments, using their own brand of chemicals. Maybe it was because they didn't see the point in testing what was readily available. But the fact that they still have not tested it, even at highschool level, means that they are now realising that they can treat it in some way with other more expesive means.

Or maybe it was because peer-reviewed scientific studies prove that modern medicines just plain work better than alternative faith-based medicine.

Quote by: Dadoo Eastern medicine is generally ongoing and proactive, with an accent on prevention. Western meds tend to approach illness in a reactive way, with an accent on protocol adherence, based on a Doctor's (or more) opinion and subsequent diagnosis.

What exactly do you mean by "eastern medicine"?

Quote by: CruellaDeChaCha This is an excellent website on the matter of "bad" science and the media reporting thereof: Bad Science » Ben Goldacre’s Bad Science column from the Guardian and more….

Excellent link, thanks.

Incidentally, in a scientific study, anecdotes are not evidence.

Exactly right. I posted the link to What's the Harm, hoping to fend off the anecdote war. The good thing about the site is that they also include some scientific papers on the harms of alternative medicines.

Quote by: commonsense I get frequent massages and believe they have many therapeutic benefits.

I'm right with you. At least in massages there is physical contact. Contrast that to a sham like Reiki, which relies on magic and energy waves.

What do you know about "Rolfing" ?

I called b.s. after reading "The notion that proper alignment, physiologic function and anatomical structure are related is the basis of many of these healing methods." This is faith-based medicine, not evidenced-based.

Quote by: Rortykiller I mean shaw, seriously, do they pay you to post here?

I get five cents a word from EvilPharm, Inc. Do you have anything to offer besides testimonials from kooks, ad hominem, paranoid "Govmint's gonna get me" rants, and misguided assumptions about my career?

[Chaossaber314]

Quote by: Shawmutt Can you name one medication that you consider legitimate that did not go through clinical trials? I can name some supplements--like every one that has the tiny letters on the bottom of the TV screen that says "This statement has not been evaluated by the FDA. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease." I work 3rd shift, I see a lot of those

Oh, I absolutely agree, but fact is, just because something hasn't gone through the FDA doesn't mean...
a.) it hasn't been scientifically tested
b.) it doesn't work.

Still, there are many that have, so lumping all supplements together, particularly negatively, is ill-advised.

In fact the number of drugs the FDA actually reviews annually is extremely extremely disproportionately small compared to the number of drugs out there not to mention the new ones / variations introduced each year.

[shawmutt]

Quote by: Chaossaber314 Oh, I absolutely agree, but fact is, just because something hasn't gone through the FDA doesn't mean... a.) it hasn't been scientifically tested b.) it doesn't work. Still, there are many that have, so lumping all supplements together, particularly negatively, is ill-advised. In fact the number of drugs the FDA actually reviews annually is extremely extremely disproportionately small compared to the number of drugs out there not to mention the new ones / variations introduced each year.

A supplement that has not gone through the FDA cannot make specific claims of what it supposedly does, so I'm not sure how you would say it "works". The coy suggestions made by supplement companies are not claims. Take "male enhancement" drugs, for instance. We all know what they are talking about, but they avoid coming right out and saying it to avoid lawsuits. Even after losing millions in settlements, these companies continue to make tens of millions.

Let's talk about the supplement Airborne.

But I'm digressing. OK, can you provide a specific example of a supplement that does what it says it does and has not been reviewed by the FDA?

[Dadoo]

[QUOTE=shawmutt;579207
But I'm digressing. OK, can you provide a specific example of a supplement that does what it says it does and has not been reviewed by the FDA?[/QUOTE]

That is hilarious. The medicines generally are copies of chemicals found in many various jungles, and other natural locales. (Plant-originated) Some are synthesized, based on mimicry, like opioids; most extracted and concentrated like thebaine, an opiate All plants have "-ates" which can be "-oided" or extracted. Millions of therpies exist where western meds can't reach. Humans are not fools and do not utilize useless medicine. Usually they do not fully understand why, although the curative powers are evident to an ape, who also utilizes non FDA- approved medicines in their habitat!!
These plants worked so well for indigineous cultures, that ethnobotanists, pharmacobotanists and others simply broke the material down, extracted and recombined the active principles. They worked so fine without the FDA consent, the FDA had to consent! Thanks, FDA!
Now, I hang out with a number of psychpharmacologists and organic chemists who work for major pharmaceuticals. The FDA only wants millions and millions for a rubber stamp. They deny the small companies drug patents outright, in deference to the sales-tax generating megaliths.
The money is all that's needed for FDA approval. They will create a disease, like ADHD, offer a cure, like methamphetamine, which was previously demonized on Sched 1 having no medicinal value at all to the US pharm.
It isn't all a scam, but money rules. There are many more yet undiscovered-by-the-FDA drugs that work perefectly fine today. Many drugs which show efficacy in certain ailments that would compromise an existing formulary's hold on the market, are labeled dangerous, even carcinogenic. See Thuja, beta-asarone, comfrey.
Viagra, which my friend helped develop, was a heart med. which had a strange side-effect. Now, it is valued for it's side-effect, simply for the multi-billion dollar revenue it creates. As a heart med? Don't mix with other heart meds,all they say. They need a type-cast, branded drug for max. profit.
If you believe the FDA is looking out for safety and drug effectiveness, know that 50 -200 million should get yuou a patent on something, and will help generate billions in sales-tax for the treasury as well as make you even richer. IMHO, pharmacies should be non-profit, as well as health insurance providers. Prices would drop, attitudes would change.
I'm not crass, but I do know a thing about this, and have experienced great results from non FDA approved techniques. There are sham-man all around you. Don't lose the forest for the tree. That's where the shaman lives. Smiles and good health!
Dadoo