10 replies to this topic

[stocks]

The Gerson diet, in particular, is very fashionable. In fact, one of my patients, seeking to improve my education, gave me a book describing this approach (2). The first half of the book formulates the hypothesis why this strange diet should improve the balance of the immune system, and the second half of the book consisted of 50 anecdotes of patients with cancer, who were only given six months to live by the medical profession, and who took to the diet and lived for a long time.

The trouble with that kind of evidence is that although we know the numerator (50) we don’t know the denominator - for example, 50 out of 1,000 cases treated by neglect could indeed live for many years while the indolent disease progresses on the chest wall. Furthermore, from the evidence available in the book, some of the diagnoses were a little bit shaky and the author neglects to mention whether or not these patients receive conventional treatment at the same time as the magic diet. Finally, I know of no oncologist who gives a patient six months to live. We may say that the median survival for a group with advanced cancer is six months, but among this group certain individuals may lie at extremes of survival. These individuals are the substance of the anecdote.

Perhaps I should leave the last word on this subject to Robert Parks, author of the wonderful book Voodoo Science. Parks wrote: ‘Alternative seems to define a culture rather than a field of medicine – a culture that is not scientifically demanding. It is a culture in which ancient accretions are given more weight than biological science and anecdotes are preferred over clinical trials. Alternative therapies steadfastly resist change often for centuries or even millennia, unaffected by scientific advances in the understanding of physiology or disease.’ (3)

http://www.spiked-on.../earticle/3910/

[maineman]

Thank you for such an excellent reference/article. This guy is brilliant and a treat to read.
It is always a joy to hear from someone so intelligent.

Sadly, for those individuals who rely on ignornance, no positive change will affect them. So it goes.

Bottom line?

Science is great.
Evidence-Based medicine is brilliant.
Governments, while often well-meaning, have an uncanny ability to screw things up.
The self-righteous will always ignore the facts. Regardless of what "proof" is provided to them.

There are some gem quotes from this guy:

"Alternative therapies steadfastly resist change often for centuries or even millennia, unaffected by scientific advances in the understanding of physiology or disease.' If that is the case, then who are the bigots and the ones with the closed minds?"

"I can only guess why most people seem to prefer the unproven to the proven, the anecdotal to the rigorously demonstrated, and the so-called natural to the scientific."

'It is not the purpose of our science to open the gates to infinite wisdom but merely to set the limits to the extent of our ignorance.'

Great stuff. Thanks again for sharing.

mm

[esther231]

Egads. I have no clue why conventional medicine and alternative medicine are so at odds on the board. It's a war going on here instead of a dialog. It's not an either/or situation - at least in my life. I use both. I always try conventional first. I love my GP. She wonderful. When she can't figure something out, I go to my infectious disease guy. Now, he's a miracle worker. He's a great listener who thinks outside the box. Worth his weight in gold. He's found the oddest things going on and made a huge difference a couple of times in my life. Usually - 90% of the time between the two of them - it works. When it doesn't, I try other stuff. So far, so good. More than good - I'm grateful I feel good. I don't take it for granted for a second. And I wouldn't feel this good if I weren't willing to use both forms of treatment. I can't imagine thinking that the two don't work well together. JMHO

[maineman]

Egads. I have no clue why conventional medicine and alternative medicine are so at odds on the board. It's a war going on here instead of a dialog.

Esther, I respect your posts and ideas. Here's the problem. The "dialogue" as you call it has been re-framed in a false sheen.

There is no such thing as "alternative" medicine. There is medicine, there is medical research. There is science, with positive, negative or inconclusive results. There are hypotheses, there are tests, there are conclusions. When something is shown to be effective, it becomes part of the care and treatment of fellow human beings.

What is referred to as "alternative" is either something that has not been studied, or is being touted by a shill, or has been studied, shown to be ineffective, but is still pushed by "believers".

Doesn't make it "bad" or "good" necessarily. For instance, Chicken Soup makes you feel better when you have a cold. But if you only took Chicken Soup for streptococall pneumonia you'd die. As a doctor if I told you to use Chicken Soup and you died you'd have every right to sue me. Also, a can of Chicken Soup should not be allowed to state on the label "effective for streptococcal pneumonia". Am I making sense?

Let's not confuse complimentary treatment with "alternative medicine". I saw 3 patients in the past 2 weeks with acute herniated lumbar discs. REally bad MRIs, terrible pain, nerves at risk. All 3 needed urgent surgical decompression. But they will also need heat, physical therapy, massage, yoga, etc. in order to get back on thier feet.

It is a dialogue and has always been a dialogue, except among people who refuse to listen to facts, or those who push mythological therapies in lieu of science.

mm

[esther231]

MM, you're right. Maybe medicine is the wrong word and adds to the confusion. It's not just medicine, it's also about healing. My doctors are all good about medicine. Really love that infectous disease guy. I do, I do. If you ever have anything strange and no one is nailing it - go see one. But not all doctors are created equal. And some them aren't healers. Thankfully, some are. But some aren't. And some people who have helped me towards health weren't doctors. Just get help where ever you can. Anywhere you can. If traditional medicine doesn't have the answer - and it doesn't have the answer on everything that ails us - don't give up. Keep searching till you get the help you need. What else can you do? This is a true story. Jean has fourth stage ovarian cancer. She's had it for over 5 years. Yes, fourth stage for 5 years. And she goes to the right doctors who are wonderful and have helped her stay alive and active for the last 5 years. But she also goes to a Chinese herbalist. And she says she needed her to stay alive too. She said she got tired of going to doctors that believed she was going to die. She would live longer with the treatments. They would help her feel better at times. But they knew she would most likely not be cured. She needed desperately to receive treatment from someone who believed she could live. She says it doesn't matter it if works or not. What's important to her is that someone believes she can be cured. And she says the treatments do help her feel better and combat the effects of chemo even if the cancer has spread. She's been seeing the herbalist all these years too. Hey, if it works for Jean - if she can beat the odds this long - and she's way outside of normal with this now - who am I to tell her different?

[maineman]

It would immoral, if not unethical, to tell her otherwise. Her use of the herbalist is clearly powerful "medicine" for her. No one is doing anything wrong in your scenario. She is taking her treatments, and they may be helping. And she sees the herbalist and this gives her solace and perhaps even a sense of well being and hope. No harm done. I don't believe that represents the "issue" of the war vrs. dialogue....no one told your friend to avoid medicince, CT scans, chemo, etc. the doctors who treated her may not have had the bedside manner your firend "needed" so she was able to compement her scientific/medical standard treatment. Good for her. Would you all supported her avoiding chemo/surgery/radiation if she had chosen to only drink tea? THat would be an example of an "alternative" treatment. One that is unfounded, untested, and based on imagination, faith and word of mouth... I hope not. I've said before. If a treatment is found to prevent or cure human disease it is used. If not, it is discarded. This goes for herbs, chemicals, good vibrations, etc. Our role as medical doctors is to prevent disease, or if not, diagnosis and treat it. Why would we withhold therapies that have been proven to work? There is no hidden agenda or secret conspiracy. There is only proof or no proof. And once in awhile a little hope and prayer never hurts. mm

[esther231]

Yes.

[maineman]

Yes.

Yes?

Good grief... NO ONE every agress with anything I say... I don't know what to do....I'm speechless.. agreeing with me is like throwing water on the wicked witch of the west.... I'm melting....melting...melting...what a world.

mm.

[esther231]

LOL I didn't disagree with anything in your post. I do think people have unrealistic expectations from doctors. You guys can't cover everything. You can't have all the answers. You're not gonna be able to fix everything. But we all go to you first. And should. And often it's all I need. But if I need more, it's up to me to find it. And do the research and on and on and make good judgements. Cause ultimately, it's my body. And it's my job to take care of it - no one else can really. I worked for AOL for years on their medical boards. I ended up doing it not because of education but from life experience. And what was remarkable about those boards is the help people were able to give each other. People had terrible stuff going on, often with no good solutions. But finding someone with the same condition, sharing coping tips, feeling like you weren't alone and learning to laugh at the craziness of it all sometimes was wonderful. And needed. I will say too that some of the boards went further and ended up making a medical difference for people. Solutions were found that made a difference now and again. So, I'm fond odd ball stuff. I know to research it. But I always try my doctors first. Like I said, thankfully, they usually have a good answer for me.

[EntropyModel]

Ironically this thead for me is now one of the few and best 'dialogue's on this board.

I think between you - esther231 & maineman, you've have got to the heart of the issue i.e. who/where do you go when you have a problem?

There are 3 common options one has -
1. Doctors/Medical professionals
2. Alternative therapists
3. Anecdotal ideas via friends, internet, books etc

Any rational person will begin with (1) i.e. seeing their primary care physician...but as said, humanity is anything but rational. Its seems a large % of people now reject 'medicine' and start with 2 ( alternative) or 3 ( anecdotal). This is unfortunately part of the wholesale rejection of science by many in USA, its not occuring in other countries I'm aware of. It what leads to the rediculous and sad sight of people buying 20$ 'miracle' Goji juice to cure all ills, total scam, but a majority of humanity will always prefer 'miracle' or 'faith' over logic/reason - its hard wired. That's why the enlightenment only occured a few hundred years ago! and upto that point...all decisions were 'faith/miracle' based, we have a long history of examine the two 'modus operandi' i.e. pre/post enlightenment - or even today in comparing clash of culture of west versus Islam.


So I absolutely agree and support maineman's defence of medical science, he does a great job of it and its important. But the next issue is, what to do if either -
a. Medical science doesn't have a solution or
b. It has a solution, but with many negative side- effects.

What are our choices - throw our arms up and say 'oh well, i guess i'll just suffer'? logically, one applies science, that is, one EXPERIMENTS. Esther describes this process very well - we can

- Look at medical studies which are more 'experimental', and not yet confirmed. This is the majority of science in the area of nutrition for example, which has many good studies, but many of which contradict each other and are 'preliminary'.

- better still, conduct ones own studies on self or others, ideally with scientific method to eliminate as much placebo effect as possible.

This is where for me and many the idea's from 2 or 3 come in - they give lots of experiment ideas, but they are never taken on 'faith' as something that will work, they must prove their worth because they are as yet unproven scientifically.

Now, using this process I have 'cured' myself of many things that medical science couldn't, but I would never tell someone I can cure them - because I'm fully aware of the narrow test group i.e. me and maybe a few family/friends.


Mark

Edited by entropy, 10 October 2007 - 06:48 PM.