Complementary therapies

[EM]

Conventional, alternative or complementary is as per see.

 

A person who prefers, let's say homeopathy, as a first line of treatment, conventional med is an alternative/comlimentary medicine for him.

 

Likewise a person who took ConMed as first line of treatment, other forms of treatment are comlementary/alternative.

These comments get to the core of your thinking. They are total rubbish. Conventional medicine is the medicine which society deems the most effective and appropriate. Treatments which are not accepted by the medical expert groups nominated by government are alternative.

 

You may not like it but that is how it is. You can moan about the role of big-pharma and claim unfair prejudice, but you can not choose to redefine the terms Science, Empirical, Conventional and Alternative as you see fit.

 

If homeopaths want to offer treatment then fine, but only if the recipients are aware that the medical establishment does not endorse the idea. When you adopt the guise of scientists and pervert the use of critically important terms (such as calling yourself a "Dr.") you have to play by the rules of science. You can't have it both ways by claiming that Science can also mean Non-Scientific Science.

[khitajrah]

If homeopaths want to offer treatment then fine, but only if the recipients are aware that the medical establishment does not endorse the idea.

 

Yet, oddly enough, you can buy homeopathic preparations at the chemists.

 

Do they just want your money?

[zeno]

Yet, oddly enough, you can buy homeopathic preparations at the chemists.

 

Do they just want your money?

Well...yes! Boots, et al just want to make money. Homeopaths say that their preparations are individualised and that it takes a long time (no kidding!) to understand the customer and their physical, mental and spiritual attributes that they somehow then take (after looking them up in a book) to come up with a 'remedy' specific to that person. So buying a preparation without this 'consultation', can't really work, can it, and any preparation bought from the chemist shouldn't work for most people. However, I doubt people buying them over the counter (OTC) have any greatly different results form those paying a homoeopath vast amounts for a consultation.

 

People buying them OTC have an expectation that it will work and hey presto! they feel a bit better! Just the same placebo effect as when they visit a real homeopath! No surprises there, then. Homeopathic preparations do not work any better than placebo.

 

It should be noted that, despite the claimed individualised nature of the preparations, many homeopaths, including Nancy, offer online consultations (http://www.sitagita.com/youth_counsellor.asp?ExpID=235).

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

What do you mean by proper doctors?

Proper doctors are ones who have passed a basic biology exam and had the patience, perseverance and ability to have passed an accredited degree in conventional medicine and who is registered with the General Medical Council and licensed to practice medicine.

 

Homeopathy and homeopathic education in India is governed, controlled and legal.ised by Govt of India and its statuary bodies. To practice and to get license in Homeopathy in India one has to get registered with govt. bodies.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

the similarities between conventional Medicine and dogmatic or fundamentalist religion are obvious.

No they are not, Nancy.

 

1. Both are run on hiarchies,the priests were the lackies of the bishops while Doctors are the lackies of the drug companies.

Yes, there are hierarchies, but that's where your analogy fails. Please provide evidence that all doctors are 'lackeys' of the drug companies and please compare that to homeopaths being lackeys of companies like Boiron.

 

 

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/499/27/ //pharma companies and doctors hand in hand

 

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126961.900-exposing-the-links-between-doctors-and-big-pharma.html?full=true

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

6. Both try prevent free discusion of homeopathy and reject criticism.

Please give examples of doctors preventing (or even trying to prevent) discussion of homeopathy.

 

 

http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/beware-of-anti-homeopathy-journalists-and-bloggers-they-may-be-sponsored-by-drug-companies/ anti-homeopathy paid by drug companies

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Belief systems? Didn't you read and understand what I said earlier about what science was? Let me say it again: the ONLY evidence that homeopathy works is from homeopaths with a vested interest in it working and their customers who generally know even less about medical conditions than their homeopaths. This is ANECDOTAL evidence only and is not considered reliable by those who have far higher standards of concern, integrity and care for their patients. I suspect you still don't understand why anecdotes are just not enough when it comes to people's health and I'd be glad to explain it for you in more detail.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1040950/The-alternative-Holby-City-treats-30-000-patients-year.html

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/peerReviewUnderTheSpotlight.php

[Malachy]

It's funny, but perhaps not surprising, that Ben Goldacre comes in for so much criticism on these homeopathy websites. The insinuation that he is in the pay of the drug companies is ridiculous, and simply shows a complete unfamiliarity with his work.

His 'Bad Science' columns in the Guardian are excellent reading. By no means does he focus his attacks solely on 'alternative therapies' - presumably for the obvious reason that they are too easy a target. The columns cover a wide range of science-related stories, highlighting poor research, misleading claims and other 'bad science'. 'Alternative' practictioners come in for criticism, but so do mainstream journalists who do not understand the subject they are writing about, and so do drug companies that make unsubstantiated claims about their products or conduct inadequate or misleading research.

If you only read his articles on homeopathy you will get the impression that he is specifically out to get alternative therapy, and could, for that reason, be in the pay of drug companies. But if you actually bother to read the rest of his work, you'll see that is clearly not the case. It is, as I said, ridiculous.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

Of course some patients are misdiagnosed and some patients die (doctors are only human and do, occasionally make mistakes), but real doctors treat real, life threatening conditions and the fate of all of us is to die. Homeopaths on the other hand, treat self-limiting, non-serious conditions - if indeed they even exist - and the experience of a 'consultation' with a customer will make the customer feel a bit better, so it's no wonder that their customers think it works. However, when something serious arises (heart attack, diabetes, cancer), they need to see a proper doctor, not one that sells sugar pills. It is when the customers of homeopaths are led to believe that homeopaths can successfully treat serious medical conditions that it gets dangerous.

 

A study reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that conventional drugs kill about 106,000 Americans a year, and this figure is limited to patients that die in the hospital, so the actual figure is unquestionably much higher. That makes prescription drugs the fourth leading cause of death in the United States (after heart attack, cancer and stroke).

 

Ref: Journal of the American Medical Association 4/15/98.

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

If you had read and understood what I said in my long post about science, you'll discover that continually refining knowledge is one of the strengths of science, not one of its weaknesses. It is homeopathy that is stuck in the past, unwilling and unable to change its dogma, with one dogmatic, cult leader at its head: Hahnemann and no one willing or able to question his nonsense.

 

Research in Homeopathy

http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/future%20homoeopathy.htm

http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/advanceshomoeopathy.htm

http://www.homeobioengg.com/marticles.htm

[Dr. Nancy Malik]

then. Homeopathic preparations do not work any better than placebo.

 

 

Homeopathic ‘placebo’: much more effective than conventional medicine’s placebo

 

Allen Roses, of GSK told a scientific meeting in London that the "vast majority of drugs only work in 30 or 50% of people." It was reported on the front page of the Independent newspaper on 8 December .

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/bmj;327/7428/1366

 

BMJ Clinical Evidence says only somewhere between 26-34% of 2,500 commonly used treatments have some proven benefit. The Bristol study [bristol Homeopathic Hospital] concluded 70%+ of patients reported some improvement with homeopathic treatment. The Berlin study came up with similar percentages and concluded that patients using homeopathy had better outcomes than patients using conventional medicine. Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital’s ongoing audits of patient response return similar percentages.

 

It’s worth emphasising that while controls might be absent in these studies, the patient cohorts tend to have a high percentage (80%+) of chronic complaints of which an equally high percentage (80%+) have failed to respond to conventional treatment. If they failed to respond to conventional treatment, in which the placebo effect is likely to be considerably stronger than in homeopathy, then it’s reasonable to suggest that these are patients who are not particularly susceptible to placebo response. If they failed to respond to conventional treatment, then it’s reasonable to suggest that for these patients, homeopathy proved to be the more effective option.â€

 

SOURCE: http://homeopathy4health.wordpress.com

[zeno]

http://www.ahrp.org/cms/content/view/499/27/ //pharma companies and doctors hand in hand

 

From that article:

Doctors receive money typically in return for delivering lectures about drugs to other doctors. Some of the doctors receiving the most money sit on committees that prepare guidelines instructing doctors nationwide about when to use medicines. Dr. Collins, who received more money than anyone else in the state, is among a limited number whose payments financed research.

 

There is no doubt that everything should always be transparent (and that applies to AltMed as well), but you have failed to prove that all doctors are 'lackies of the drug companies'. Even if some are corrupt, this does not support your 'theory' that conventional medicine is like a religion. This is a diversion anyway.

[zeno]

6. Both try prevent free discusion of homeopathy and reject criticism.

Please give examples of doctors preventing (or even trying to prevent) discussion of homeopathy.

 

 

http://homeopathyresource.wordpress.com/2008/11/27/beware-of-anti-homeopathy-journalists-and-bloggers-they-may-be-sponsored-by-drug-companies/ anti-homeopathy paid by drug companies

 

 

Did you even bother to read this article you cited? Didn't think so. Its title is

Beware of Anti-Homeopathy Journalists and Bloggers- They May Be Sponsored By Drug Companies

 

There are two things wrong with your assertions:

 

1. You were claiming that doctors were trying to prevent discussion of homeopathy

2. That doctors reject criticism of their rejection of homeopathy.

 

Can you confirm that this is a fair summary of what you said?

 

If so, what has what journalists and bloggers got to do with it? Please answer in your own words, rather than just linking to what a biased pro-quack journalist has said.

[zeno]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1040950/The-alternative-Holby-City-treats-30-000-patients-year.html

 

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/peerReviewUnderTheSpotlight.php

Nancy

 

Can you please say things in your own words rather than trying to let someone else speak for you, particular if they are completely spurious?

 

Anyway, what's the articles you gave got to do with the inadequacy of anecdotes, particularly when we are talking about life or death matters?

[zeno]

If you had read and understood what I said in my long post about science, you'll discover that continually refining knowledge is one of the strengths of science, not one of its weaknesses. It is homeopathy that is stuck in the past, unwilling and unable to change its dogma, with one dogmatic, cult leader at its head: Hahnemann and no one willing or able to question his nonsense.

 

Research in Homeopathy

http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/future%20homoeopathy.htm

http://www.modernhomoeopathy.com/advanceshomoeopathy.htm

http://www.homeobioengg.com/marticles.htm

Nancy

 

Yet again, these have nothing to do with the subject. The first says very little, the second tells us all about the advances of conventional medicine and the third doesn't work.