The Great Medical Debate...

gigglesnort · Post by **gigglesnort** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:54 am

A blending of whatever works, I say, and way to be responsible for your health. Well, except the chili dog part, anyway {she says as she stuffs the last of a chocolate bar into her pie hole}

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 8:59 am

no, no, chili dogs are an important part of any well-balanced healthcare regimen.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:23 am

Ranger Genius wrote:
Educational Requirements: High school diploma or equivalent; 60 semester units of pre-chiropractic college course work; graduation from a board-approved, accredited chiropractic college.
And guess who makes up the board? That's right, chiropractors. They've had two years of college (they don't even have to get a degree!), and studied at a Chiropractic College that only has to pass muster for a group of Chiropractors, and there you have it. This quote is from the chiropractic licensure for the state of CA, by the way. Referenced here. I'm still trying to look up exactly what it means to be an accredited chiropractic college. What exactly the legal standard is for that. Will update.

Just to throw gas on the flames, but isn't M.D. liscencing done by the AMA--a bunch of M.D.s? A lot of professional groups do watch over/liscence themselves (with state help). It's great when they have a vested interest in trashing incompetents, but lousey when they get too into covering up their buddies.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:26 am

gigglesnort wrote: However, a nurse midwife saved me from having a cesarean section, where a conventional approach would have not let me deliver naturally, and I would have been sliced open halfway through my body, which I would count as a doctor making me sick.

This happens a lot as a c-section take less time and makes more money for hte doctor.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:29 am

My guess as to why massage therapy and some other non-conventional approaches "work" is that there is much more personal connection between practisioner and patient. A better bedside manner. Those things create positive energy (i.e. jolly the patient through the illness) and help work out small things. Varient of the placibo effect if you will.

Just a thought.

swampdog · Post by **swampdog** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 10:47 am

good point. Articles many years back (no cites) about fraud doctors, people with no training at all who hang out a shingle start taking on patients and are *beloved* by their patients. They didn't do any real medicine, they just listened to the person. If the person was really sick, they referred them on to a real doc.

rodent · Post by **rodent** » Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:32 pm

Rob the Wop wrote: <<SNIP>>

When the doc told me I had high blood pressure and high cholesterol, I said I would try and take care of it via exercise and diet.

<<<SNIP>>

Cest la vie. Watcha gonna do?

Reminds me of the old quote...

"Eat right, excercise, and die anyway."

Besides, why would you want to live forever if forever excluded chilli cheese dogs?

---
rodent (putting the eek in geek)

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:59 am

One thing I forgot to say yesterday is that I think a lot of Amerkins suffer from touch deprivation and in that sence a visit to that spectrum of "alternate healers" that covers massage and chiro. Depression has a tendency to "somatise" as minor aches and pains that are impossible to track down. A weekly massage may treat them in the sense that one feels better afterwards (yum, endorphines) without it being because of the "official line" of the profession who has done the treating.

Also, certain things may work for unknown reasons and then a story may be made up about why it works which can over time beome a medical system. Lots of it may be crap, but there will be pieces that work.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 1:12 pm

Are we ready for round 2?

gigglesnort · Post by **gigglesnort** » Fri Mar 25, 2005 9:14 pm

I signed a consent form for my most recent medical procedure which stated that I understood that the practice of medicine was not an exact science.

OCCAM'S SLEDGE-O-MATIC · Post by **OCCAM'S SLEDGE-O-MATIC** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:36 pm

[quote="theCryptofishist"][quote="Ranger Genius"][quote]Educational Requirements: High school diploma or equivalent; 60 semester units of pre-chiropractic college course work; graduation from a board-approved, accredited chiropractic college. [/quote]
And guess who makes up the board? That's right, chiropractors. They've had two years of college (they don't even have to get a degree!), and studied at a Chiropractic College that only has to pass muster for a group of Chiropractors, and there you have it. This quote is from the chiropractic licensure for the state of CA, by the way. [url=http://commerce.ca.gov/state/ttca/ttca_ ... sPath=sec8]Referenced here[/url]. I'm still trying to look up exactly what it means to be an accredited chiropractic college. What exactly the legal standard is for that. Will update.[/quote]Just to throw gas on the flames, but isn't M.D. liscencing done by the AMA--a bunch of M.D.s? A lot of professional groups do watch over/liscence themselves (with state help). It's great when they have a vested interest in trashing incompetents, but lousey when they get too into covering up their buddies.[/quote]

Much of this this debate is so American, that is, the tendency to view an issue as either all black or white.

Those on the side of "Government Approved Medicine" the "Mainstream Medical Establishment" (the AMA, etc.,) point to the quackery of a minority of "alternative" medicine practitioners to "prove" that ALL alternative medicine is bogus. Neglecting to mention the fact that they're complicit in the ability of quacks to flourish in this field because there are no certifications available because "traditional" medicine denies that ANY "alternative" treatment has value.

How many stories of alternative miracle cures do we have to hear, and how many stories of drugs like Celebrex being yanked off the market because they kill do we have to hear before we realize that there are large money forces that are manipulating medical opinion?

Or like Chris Rock said; "Man, they ain't NEVER gonna find a CURE for cancer, ain't no damned MONEY in a CURE!"

How arrogant and short-sighted is it to hold the opinion that we must ALWAYS use a modern drug or treatment to get relief?

I'm sure your "traditional" Doctor cares about you and is not trying to make you sick, but he is at the mercy of his training. And there are huge money motivations for keeping people believing in "traditional" medicine.

Did you know that the top 10 fortune 500 companies are ALL pharmaceutical companies?

And that their combined profits are greater than the combined profits of the other 490?

That's a pretty strong motivation.

Obviously we can expect them to fight tooth and nail against ANY recognition of natural or alternative medicines being recognized as being as effective (or more effective in some cases) even while they're cheaper...

What it boils down to is that yes, traditional medicine is excellent for treating "emergency" situations like accidents or someone who's let their health deteriorate. But "alternative" medicine is GENERALLY a healthier, lower cost solution once that situation is stabilized.

The word "generally" brings me my point; we'd like to believe that we can just believe in one type of medicine or the other, but it's still down to you to do your own research and buyer beware in each case. Unfortunately, those government boards and certification processes have been corrupted and can't be trusted.

The FDA is comprised of executives who hop back and forth between employment by Big Pharmaceutical companies and their FDA positions, sometimes even working for the FDA [i]while[/i] they're members of Big Pharma boards of directors.

The AMA has shown itself repeatedly to be similarly biased.

What's the FDA's excuse now for why we should not be allowed to buy drugs from across the border? Bit of dark humor, that, in light of the Celebrex debacle...

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:47 pm

OCCAM'S SLEDGE-O-MATIC wrote: Did you know that the top 10 fortune 500 companies are ALL pharmaceutical companies?

And that their combined profits are greater than the combined profits of the other 490?

USA Today in 2003 wrote:1. Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Bentonville, Ark., 1, $258.681

2. Exxon Mobil Corp., Irving, Texas, 3, $213.199

3. General Motors Corp., Detroit, 2, $195.645

4. Ford Motor Co., Dearborn, Mich., 4, $164.496

5. General Electric Co., Fairfield, Conn., 5, $134.187

6. ChevronTexaco Corp., San Ramon, Calif., 7, $112.937

7. ConocoPhillips, Houston, 12, $99.468

8. Citigroup Inc., New York, 6, $94.713

9. International Business Machines Corp., Armonk, N.Y., 8, $89.131

10. American International Group, Inc., New York, 9, $81.300

cite

I think GM makes the best cramp drug on the planet.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:03 pm

Good Point Cryptofishist, it's confusing, this might sort it out better:

"In 2001, the ten American drug companies in the Fortune 500 list (not quite the same as the top ten worldwide, but their profit margins are much the same) ranked far above all other American industries in average net return, whether as a percentage of sales (18.5 percent), of assets (16.3 percent), or of shareholders' equity (33.2 percent). These are astonishing margins. For comparison, the median net return for all other industries in the Fortune 500 was only 3.3 percent of sales. Commercial banking, itself no slouch as an aggressive industry with many friends in high places, was a distant second, at 13.5 percent of sales"
"The Fortune 500," Fortune, April 15, 2002, p. F26.

from: http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17244#fn11

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Wed Mar 30, 2005 5:38 pm

theCryptofishist wrote:...
2. Exxon Mobil Corp., Irving, Texas, 3, $213.199
6. ChevronTexaco Corp., San Ramon, Calif., 7, $112.937
7. ConocoPhillips, Houston, 12, $99.468

<offtopic> Interesting, wonder where they would be if they would not have recently merged. </offtopic>

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:27 am

Spec
it was the first thing that flashed in my mind "Bigger than Oil?" that set me off for cites.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Apr 04, 2005 11:36 am

I've been reading The Borderlands of Science over the weekend, and while I don't think Shermer would endorse some of the medical practices we've been discussing, there seems to be the possibility that he'd broaden the discussion in an interesting way. The last chapter I finished was on Alfred Russell Wallace and I'd say that part of Shermer's arguement is that the very openness that lead to Wallace's discovery of Natural Selection also lead to his interest in Spirtualism. Interesting.

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:31 pm

So the only thing that's been proven there is that pharmaceutical companies make high returns on investment. None of the top ten for revenues are pharm. companies, though. And let's put the argument that sledge-o-matic made in its purest form:

Pharmaceutical companies make lots of money, therefore medical research scientists at universities and research facilities ignore natural and alternative treatments that work.

Is it just me, or is that argument kind of, well, retarded? Why is it that not one credible study has been performed which indicates that acupuncture works? Or reflexology? or touch-healing, energy or aura manipulation, spiritual cleansing, magnet therapy, or any of the other alternative treatments I hear about daily? Why is it that the JREF Million-dollar prize goes unclaimed, when demonstrating any of the things I just mentioned under proper observing conditions would instantly land the demonstrator one million US dollars in cold, hard cash?

Sledge-O-Rama wrote:How many stories of alternative miracle cures do we have to hear, and how many stories of drugs like Celebrex being yanked off the market because they kill do we have to hear before we realize that there are large money forces that are manipulating medical opinion?

Anyone who passed tenth grade science should know that anecdotal evidence doesn't mean dick when it comes to proving a claim. There are too many factors in play for you to be able to say that the alternative so-called "medical" procedure had anything to do with any of these "miraculous" recoveries. And remember Ephedra? That was an "herbal" drug, too. When it became apparent that Celebrex was hurting people, the manufacturers voluntarily pulled it from the market, at great expense to themselves and thereby exposing themselves to monstrous amounts of litigation. Ephedra manufacturers didn't pull it until they were forced to by the FDA. Which group is it that's making money at the expense of your health?

You think the CSICOP (The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal) is motivated by money? They're making millions out of suppressing alternative medicines, right? The reason the scientific community rejects alternative medicine is because it DOESN'T WORK. It's not really that complicated. Scientists are not politicians, and they're not pharmaceutical company executives. They're scientists, and they believe in evidence. The scientific method is wonderfully flexible, and that's what makes it so great. If there's evidence that contradicts even a well-established theory, the theory can be modified or even tossed out completely to accomodate the new evidence. Unlike, say, faith in alternative medicine, which blithely ignores mountains of evidence indicating that it's all horseshit, and happily contradicts everything we know about the way the universe and our bodies work.

Less than a hundred years ago, people ate and drank radioactive substances as an alternative health practice. Find your Aug 2004 popular science and read the article about it. It was believed that because radiation was natural, it was safe. Does that sound familiar? "It's 100% natural, so you know it's safe!" Not all which is natural is safe, and you should bear in mind that alternative medicines do not subject themselves to the scrutiny of the FDA, and therefore don't have to prove that they are safe, let alone effective.

. . . well-known industrialist, playboy and three-bottle-a-day Radithor (radiation infused water) user Eben Byers. Byers's gruesome death in 1932 inspired the Wall Street Journal headline "The Radium Water Worked Fine until His Jaw Came Off."

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:39 pm

btw--maybe there never will be a "cure" for cancer, maybe all we'll get is treatments of greater or lesser intrusiveness. I think the treatments would make money, and a cure more so. Of course, there's always prevention--diet and exercise, two of the drearier words in the language.

Kinetic IV · Post by **Kinetic IV** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 1:47 pm

[quote="theCryptofishist"]btw--maybe there never will be a "cure" for cancer, maybe all we'll get is treatments of greater or lesser intrusiveness. I think the treatments would make money, and a cure more so. Of course, there's always prevention--diet and exercise, two of the drearier words in the language.[/quote]

Prevention is not always possible and diet and exercise can't always overcome environmental and other factors.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:43 pm

""alternative medicines do not subject themselves to the scrutiny of the FDA, and therefore don't have to prove that they are safe, let alone effective.""

recent evidence is showing that the FDA process is no gaurantee either

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 7:38 pm

It's pretty difficult to balance the need to get useful drugs out on the market with the need to test them thoroughly. The recent recalls have been due to long-term effects in a very slim portion of the population with an already existing unrelated condition.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 8:48 am

I'm old enough to remember when AIDS patients demanded to be used in drug trial for stuff that was still in an earlier phase of development.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:38 am

I say have two categories "approved" drugs and "non-approved" drugs. If you want to take the non approved drugs, fine, but you can't sue ANYONE when you grow extra toes and develop gills.

I really resent the government telling me what I can and can't put in my body under the guise of "protecting" me.

I recently went through a clinical drug trial that has helped tremendously with a health problem I've been living with for years. I asked my doctor at the end of the trial "When is this stuff coming on the market??" He says, oh, we can get it for you from now on because you particpated in the trial, they've been using it in Europe for 10 years, but it'll be another 10 at least before it's approved here in the U.S. .

Great!

Ranger Genius · Post by **Ranger Genius** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 10:53 am

Do you know how much they go through just to get approval to start clinical trials? People who go apeshit when a mistake is made and a drug has to be recalled for safety concerns are the reason the process takes to long and is so difficult.

On an only slightly related note, I read the ingredients in one of my co-workers' "safe, natural" diet pills. It was about 800mg of caffeine, plus some raspberry leave extract (diuretic) and magnolia root extract (poison that causes loss of appetite.) So it poisons and dehydrates you, so you lose quite a few pounds right away...but if you quit taking them and drink some water, it all comes back. But they're natural, so the must be safe.

tisha2 · Post by **tisha2** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:04 am

a lot of herbal remedies are "non-approved" drugs that have been around for, y'know, EVER and that's because they've been working. Personally, i trust the test of several centuries of trial and error over a couple decades of man-made chemicals and semi-reliable testing.

gigglesnort · Post by **gigglesnort** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 11:59 am

RG: Your friend obviously has something sheisty. I think a wholistic natural approach to weight loss has less to do with magic pills than with a healthy diet and exercise. To my knowledge, raspberry leaf isn't a diuretic, but an herb associated with pregnancy, childbirth, menstruation.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:00 pm

People who go apeshit when a mistake is made and a drug has to be recalled for safety concerns are the reason the process takes to long and is so difficult.

And by "apeshit" I assume you mean sue the pants off of everyone from the manufacturer, to the doctor prescribing the meds, to the pharmacy that filled the script to the bag boy who put them in car along with the groceries.

And by "Safety Concerns" I assume you mean that the companies don't want to pay millions of dollars in class action lawsuits.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/mld/my ... 924073.htm

My point is that I would like to be the one to make the decision on what is safe for me take and what is not.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:05 pm

Wait a minute.
Culturally we don't discuss risk very well.
It may even be a basic part of the species. That makes it difficult for this particular part of the problem to be worked on.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:49 pm

Culturally we don't discuss risk very well.

That's why you can still be privvy to some spectacular fuck-ups on the playa.

That's not always a bad thing either.

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:51 pm

Natural meds usually work better than their counterpart - it's just that the corporations can't make a fortune off them.

All it takes is someone who knows how it works... Hmmm... Where's Dr. Mbogo Mbogo when you need him... there's no doctor like a witch doctor!

Reminds me of something I read once - A western doctor will tell you "This might sting just a teensie bit, it might help"... a Healer will tell you "I can fix it, but this is gonna hurt like HELL!"

The Great Medical Debate...

Re: long winded.

So who should be the judges?

Re: So who should be the judges?

Re: So who should be the judges?