![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 27. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by football on April 5, 2007, at 1:57:06
I'm not trying to come off as rude, but what advantages are their to alternative meds compared to prescribed meds?
Alternative meds often have been studied very little and may not only be ineffective, but potentially dangerous.
Posted by Quintal on April 5, 2007, at 13:52:40
In reply to Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by football on April 5, 2007, at 1:57:06
There are plenty of detailed studies on herbal medicines over on PubMed if you could trouble yourself to have a look. I was pleasantly surprised at the quantity and quality of the studies available on the herb Agnus Castus when I was researching it as a dopamine agonist to lower prolactin levels. The 'advantages' of herbal medicines are often said to be the lower side effect profile and better tolerability.
I don't mean to be rude, but surely I don't have to point out to a person of your intelligence that all synthetic medicines can be ineffective (presumably the reason you're now taking an MAOI?) and potentially dangerous (particularly the Nardil you're taking). I wonder why you didn't think of this yourself?
Q
Posted by Declan on April 5, 2007, at 21:34:24
In reply to Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by football on April 5, 2007, at 1:57:06
>Alternative meds often have been studied very little and may not only be ineffective, but potentially dangerous.<
I'm not sure that you're right.
It seems to me that a lot of alternative meds have been researched scientifically (rather than medically) more than conventional meds.Someone else would be better informed than me.
And what about nutritional medicine?
I wonder where that fits in?
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on April 6, 2007, at 4:34:19
In reply to Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by football on April 5, 2007, at 1:57:06
> Alternative meds often have been studied very little and may not only be ineffective, but potentially dangerous.
I actually think it should be:
"Prescription meds often have been studied very little and may not be only ineffective, but potentially dangerous"
Did Anna Nicole Smith recently die from a cocktail of alternative medicines? No, she did not. She died from a cocktail of prescription medicines. And she didn't even OD, as far as I'm aware.
Sean Penn's brother also died because he was taking heart medication, and then decided to buy some OTC cough medicines.... it was a dangerous mix of both OTC drugs, and prescrption meds. But do people think about this? No they don't, they assume conventional meds are safe. When they are not.
Kind regards
Meri
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on April 6, 2007, at 4:38:35
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by Meri-Tuuli on April 6, 2007, at 4:34:19
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6532099.stm
So it seems it was an accidental overdose. Just for a comparison, I think its very very hard with alternative medicine to die from an accidental overdose.
Posted by Klavot on April 6, 2007, at 8:34:01
In reply to Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by football on April 5, 2007, at 1:57:06
> I'm not trying to come off as rude, but what advantages are their to alternative meds compared to prescribed meds?
>
> Alternative meds often have been studied very little and may not only be ineffective, but potentially dangerous.Some alternative "medicines" are totally useless, for example homeopathy. Homeopathy not only defies scientific explanation, it actually violates some basic laws in chemistry and physics. For example, homeopathic preparations are routinely diluted to the point where the active ingredient *vanishes*. To circumvent this awkward little detail, homeopaths then incorrectly invoke the principle of preservation of information in quantum physics by arguing that the preparation has a "memory" of the active ingredient that was once present.
It all becomes somewhat more tragic when alternative practitioners - who, for the most part, have little medical training - start to seriously misdiagnose patients. I can relate one incident that happened to a fifty-something year old woman that I know who had a problem with excessive thirst. Her trusted homeopath told her it was OK to drink lots of water since it cleanses the body, and she needn't worry about it. Well, it turns out she actually had diabetes, a fact discovered when she eventually was admitted to hospital having entered a diabetic coma. An orthodox doctor would immediately have investigated the diagnosis of diabetes faced with a patient suffering excessive thirst - it really is a textbook case.
Klavot
Posted by teejay on April 6, 2007, at 8:43:17
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by Klavot on April 6, 2007, at 8:34:01
Klavot, I for one am beginning to find you quite objectionable.
You've made your point, but when people like Lar actually addressed your concerns, you clammed up.
True, alternative doctors misdiagnose, but then so do thousands in mainstream medicine, in fact misdiagnosis, errors or side effects from meds etc are the number 1 killer in the US! You tell us our minds are closed, yet you are the one who is obviously blinkered in your thinking.
So without wishing to be rude, why don't you do us all a favour and go elsewhere and try and irritate people.
TJ
Posted by Klavot on April 6, 2007, at 9:13:32
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by teejay on April 6, 2007, at 8:43:17
> Klavot, I for one am beginning to find you quite objectionable.
>
> You've made your point, but when people like Lar actually addressed your concerns, you clammed up.I did not clam up. Larry made some good constructive arguments and presented concrete evidence that swayed my thinking on nutritional medicine, which is only one area of alternative medicine.
> True, alternative doctors misdiagnose, but then so do thousands in mainstream medicine, in fact misdiagnosis, errors or side effects from meds etc are the number 1 killer in the US! You tell us our minds are closed, yet you are the one who is obviously blinkered in your thinking.
Not once did I ever state or infer that anybody's minds were closed. Why would I often visit a web site to communicate with people whose minds I thought were closed?
> So without wishing to be rude, why don't you do us all a favour and go elsewhere and try and irritate people.
>I am sorry you feel that way. I would have preferred a fact-based discussion on these matters.
Kind regards
Klavot
Posted by Quintal on April 6, 2007, at 9:41:37
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by Klavot on April 6, 2007, at 8:34:01
>True, alternative doctors misdiagnose, but then so do thousands in mainstream medicine.............
Thank you teejay, I was just about to make that point. I suppose my mother is a textbook case of this. She developed severe diarrhea and vomiting in her mid teens, which persisted intermittently until she was 24 (by now a frail, skeletal figure) she was admitted to hospital and finally diagnosed with Chron's Disease. The GP at her local practice had been treating her for dysentery for most of that time, and when that failed he claimed she was neurotic and had an eating disorder. By the time she was finally diagnosed the Chron's was so advanced she needed major surgery, culminating in an ileostomy a few years later. She had to live with that mutilation for the rest of her life, which incidentally was cut short when her lung cancer was misdiagnosed as a chest infection, and later when it failed to respond to antibiotics, asthma. The radiologist had misinterpreted the shadow on her x-ray as an infection rather than a tumour, and the inhalers sufficiently masked the symptoms until the cancer was so advanced it was untreatable.
So I don't necessarily buy the idea that conventional doctors are always more accurate in their diagnosis and always prescribe the most appropriate treatment. Nor do I see why we must reduce ourselves to the tribal behaviour of children and teenagers, i.e. having to belong to one particular group and deride all others.
I use whatever treatment I feel is most appropriate to me given the information available to me at the time. As a result I'm now taking synthetic drugs; reboxetine and pramipexole because they seem most likely to help me right now. However, I'd have no hesitation in using an 'alternative' remedy if it seemed likely it would also be beneficial to me, as I have done in the past.
Q
Posted by madeline on April 6, 2007, at 10:46:19
In reply to Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by football on April 5, 2007, at 1:57:06
I think where people can potentially get into trouble is when they totally reject "conventional" therapy for "alternative" and vice versa.
In fact, even the National Institutes of Health in the US has opened up an entirely new institute devoted to the discovery and research of complementary and alternative therapies.
It's a great site to start educating yourself about the benefits or hazard of alternative medications/therapies.
Posted by Quintal on April 6, 2007, at 10:58:43
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds? » football, posted by madeline on April 6, 2007, at 10:46:19
__________________________________________________
In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the popular dietary supplement combination of glucosamine plus chondroitin sulfate did not provide significant relief from osteoarthritis pain among all participants. However, a smaller subgroup of study participants with moderate-to-severe pain showed significant relief with the combined supplements.
http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/gait/
__________________________________________________Even on this article on glucosamine I can hear the note of bias and grudging acceptance that it does actually work. Nowhere have I seen a study of a 'conventional' medicine where 100% of all participants obtained significant relief from the treatment, yet you'll never find the results presented in such an obliquely dismissive and disparaging manner as this. Disappointing but entirely predictable.
Q
Posted by gardenergirl on April 6, 2007, at 11:43:46
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by teejay on April 6, 2007, at 8:43:17
> Klavot, I for one am beginning to find you quite objectionable.
> yet you are the one who is obviously blinkered in your thinking.Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues should be directed to Psycho-Babble Administration and should of course be civil. Dr. Bob has oversight over deputy decisions, and he may choose a different action. If you wish, you can appeal this decision to him.
Namaste
gg, acting as deputy
Posted by madeline on April 6, 2007, at 15:32:39
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds? » madeline, posted by Quintal on April 6, 2007, at 10:58:43
????
I didn't get that at all. That article is even available for CME credit for docs so they can learn that they DO work and how to best advise their paitents who want to incorporate the supplements into their therapy.
The prescribing info is below
"On the basis of the results from GAIT, it seems prudent to tell our patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee that neither glucosamine hydrochloride nor chondroitin sulfate alone has been shown to be more efficacious than placebo for the treatment of knee pain. If patients choose to take dietary supplements to control their symptoms, they should be advised to take glucosamine sulfate rather than glucosamine hydrochloride and, for those with severe pain, that taking chondroitin sulfate with glucosamine sulfate may have an additive effect. Three months of treatment is a sufficient period for the evaluation of efficacy; if there is no clinically significant decrease in symptoms by this time, the supplements should be discontinued. Furthermore, there is no evidence that these agents prevent osteoarthritis in healthy persons or in persons with knee pain but normal radiographs."
Seems fair to me.
"
Posted by Declan on April 6, 2007, at 16:15:57
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by Klavot on April 6, 2007, at 9:13:32
In Australia there is a Postgrad Diploma of Nutritional Medicine, offered to doctors and some other health professionals.
The doc I see is involved in it.
Truly, it makes psychiatry seem very unscientific.
The problem with it is that you have to be consistant, dedicated and interested, and the results are slow.
OTOH, he actually gets some people well.
OTOH it is expensive and therefore elitest.A lot of people come from all over for advice on stuff like cancer treatment and diabetes.
Posted by Declan on April 6, 2007, at 16:26:54
In reply to Nutritional Medicine, posted by Declan on April 6, 2007, at 16:15:57
Some years ago I landed up in hospital with a sceptic condition on my knee related to undiagnosed arthritis and fluid build up.
I had half a cup of pus extracted that mercifully didn't end up *in* the knee joint and was on antibiotics for a month.
I can control (it's always a bit sore, but never bad) it now with
Glucosamine
Fish Oil
Boswellia
Curcumin
various flavanoids
and stuff like that.If I was to stop I'm fairly sure I'd be in hospital in a month or less, so I'm not going to see if these things work or don't work for sure.
There's cartilege missing from under the patella.
Posted by Quintal on April 6, 2007, at 17:13:34
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by madeline on April 6, 2007, at 15:32:39
Clearly the article says the combination of glucosamine and chondroitin does work, that's not the issue. As I said in my previous post;
__________________________________________________
Even on this article on glucosamine I can hear the note of bias and grudging acceptance that it does actually work. Nowhere have I seen a study of a 'conventional' medicine where 100% of all participants obtained significant relief from the treatment, yet you'll never find the results presented in such an obliquely dismissive and disparaging manner as this.
__________________________________________________It's the way the evidence is presented that bugs me. For a casual browser unfamiliar with semantic games the introductory line;
__________________________________________________In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the popular dietary supplement combination of glucosamine plus chondroitin sulfate did not provide significant relief from osteoarthritis pain among all participants.
__________________________________________________Casts a very negative shadow over the positive:
__________________________________________________
However, a smaller subgroup of study participants with moderate-to-severe pain showed significant relief with the combined supplements.
__________________________________________________To ordinary members of the public looking towards this site for balanced, unbiased authority on alternative medicines this is discouraging. Few would then bother to go looking for the prescribing info you quoted. They'd probably go back to the more reassuringly positive reviews of conventional medicines. I don't believe this is accidental. A similar theme follows through the other treatments I looked at.
>Seems fair to me.
Okay, lets turn this around and ask if this would be a fair and unbiased representation of the facts on SSRIs:
__________________________________________________"In a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, the popular antidepressant sertraline hydrochloride did not provide significant relief from depressive illness among all participants. However, a smaller subgroup of study participants with moderate-to-severe depression showed significant relief with sertraline hydrochloride."
__________________________________________________Now why would we word an article like that where the emphasis is on the negative - that sertraline did not provide significant relief among *ALL* patients, and the positive (that for some people with moderate-to-severe depression it is effective) is presented as being secondary, almost less important, when afterall a 100% success rate is a very unusual response rate? I've never seen anything like that in studies published by pharmaceutical industry, and they wouldn't (even though it is technically a fair and accurate appraisal of the facts) because from the outset your mind is tuned to the negative and you get the impression sertraline isn't really worth bothering with - you 'd probably go and look for a treatment which received a more positive review.............like this for example:
__________________________________________________St. John's Wort provided significant relief for people with moderate-to-severe depression with co-morbid anxiety. However, St. John's Wort did not provide significant relief for all participants, particularly a subgroup of those with severe and psychotic depression.
__________________________________________________The wording of the summary forms a different picture in your mind.
Q
Posted by nolvas on April 6, 2007, at 18:47:07
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by Klavot on April 6, 2007, at 9:13:32
If anyone really doubts nutritional therapy then I challenge them to check this out >
http://www.hyperhealth.com/botanic.aspx
The amount of real kosher scientific study relating to nutritional therapy on that CD is staggering.
Posted by teejay on April 6, 2007, at 20:20:45
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by Klavot on April 6, 2007, at 9:13:32
> I did not clam up. Larry made some good constructive arguments and presented concrete evidence that swayed my thinking on nutritional medicine, which is only one area of alternative medicine.
> I would have preferred a fact-based discussion on these matters.
Actually I've just gone back and checked the thread and Lar wrote a VERY comprehensive rebuttal of the article you posted yet you didn't even reply to him, yet you expanded the discussion to include other alternatives in the thread but once again failed to address remarks put to you.
Personally i'm all for a FACT based discussion but as yet I've not seen you offer any.
(gardengirl.....sorry for overstepping the mark, but I just get a little protective when people walk into an area I call 'home' and stir it up....I hope you understand).
TJ
Posted by tealady on April 7, 2007, at 0:54:33
In reply to Arthritis and Nutritional Medicine, posted by Declan on April 6, 2007, at 16:26:54
Maybe your doc was the one I was considering doing a course with a whikle ago... I've given up now, I just find it all a bit much, especially writing, even posting here:-)
I did pick up a bit of basics in Chem, physiol, and Biol etc at uni though so it helps me read the studies..if I can bring mmyself to them , LOL
I already had the stats background , so I also dismissed that research Lar gave such an excellent review of(Onya Lar). Although, to be fair, I dismiss probably most of the studies for similar reasons or even bias in sample elimination/selection /dropouts..as I've personally had my own family elimiated from a study as including it would NOT have achieved the desired outcome of result, LOL.Hence my oft stated preference for hearing personal accounts preferably together with as much "background" as possible..a tall ask.
Anyways,re the knee Dec.
I was wondering if you or your doc has ANY inkling of where this cartiledge replacement stuff is "at" nowadays.
I keep hearing stories from
"so and so went to WA and got a cartiledge replacemnent and is as good as new now.. they grew her own cartiledge.. so why don't u go over there?"
asking docs I get
" that's still in research stage" or "that's in human trials now I think, but o'seas"
or "yes, I've heard of that but no idea where it's done"I gather it's growing one's own cartiledge.. maybe it's related to stem cells.. stories seem to differ here?"
Well I haven't found out anything as yet. but it does seem to be the way to go?..
Of course, I'm trying to suppress my cynicism here about any rebates.. the stories seem to be it costs similar to a knee replacement, but where that, being orthodox surgery would be totally refundable going public.. I doubt whether cartiledge addition would be?
All in all..lots of stories I've heard , and everyone telling me to go that way..BUT like does it exist?still enjoy reading on here, just not as active in posting nowadays
Jan
Posted by Declan on April 7, 2007, at 1:18:04
In reply to Re: Arthritis and Nutritional Medicine » Declan, posted by tealady on April 7, 2007, at 0:54:33
The bloke who did the arthroscopy did say that there was an experimental procedure that was as yet unavailable that might be of help to me. I imagined it might be injecting hyaluronic acid (if that's what it is) into the knee joint. But maybe not? I didn't ask more.
Arthritis has a dismal trajectory anfd therefore should be treated aggressively. Conventional medicine offers nothing really, and NSAIDs, apart from being toxic inhibit cartilege regrowth (I think).
So it's no contest.You can take hyaluronic acid, keratin and korean angelica orally, which I shall do soon. It's in this product:
"Designed to help maintain the healthy function of the articular cartilage, the sturdy yet elastic tissue that covers the ends of bones in joints to facilitate smooth movement, Fast Acting Joint Formula contains patented forms of hyaluronic acid and keratin, and a novel plant extract Angelica gigas Nakai.
Hyaluronic acid (HA) is a glycosaminoglycan (similar in many ways to glucosamine and chondroitin) that is widely distributed throughout many connective tissues (cartilage, bones, muscles tendons, ligaments, and skin). It is one of the chief components of the extracellular matrix (such as synovial fluid in joints) and contributes significantly to connective tissue integrity. Hyaluronic acid serves as one of the primary lubrication components for healthy joint cartilage, where it can help maintain normal joint function by increasing the viscosity of the synovial fluid and by making the cartilage between bones more elastic and smooth-moving. Hyaluronic acid can be delivered directly to the joint space to have a positive biochemical effect on cartilage cells, and is used medically to treat osteoarthritis of the knee."
I wonder if they get this stuff from processed bovine tracheas?
But growing your own cartilege cells and having them injected? In WA? I must ask. Thanks Jan.
Posted by Klavot on April 7, 2007, at 3:19:43
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds?, posted by teejay on April 6, 2007, at 20:20:45
> > I did not clam up. Larry made some good constructive arguments and presented concrete evidence that swayed my thinking on nutritional medicine, which is only one area of alternative medicine.
>
> > I would have preferred a fact-based discussion on these matters.
>
> Actually I've just gone back and checked the thread and Lar wrote a VERY comprehensive rebuttal of the article you posted yet you didn't even reply to him, yet you expanded the discussion to include other alternatives in the thread but once again failed to address remarks put to you.That is not clamming up. Larry made good points and presented good evidence that swayed my thinking. I did not challenge his assertions because I could find nothing substantially wrong with them.
> Personally i'm all for a FACT based discussion
Fact-based means not hurling personal insults at people who do not share your views, which is pretty much all you've done.
> but as yet I've not seen you offer any.
Well, I suppose it's a case of your perception being reality.
> (gardengirl.....sorry for overstepping the mark, but I just get a little protective when people walk into an area I call 'home' and stir it up....I hope you understand).
I simply made the observation that the principles which underlie homeopathy are in violation of chemistry and physics. There is no factual basis for you to conclude that I am stirring.
You said in your last post:
> Klavot, I for one am beginning to find you quite objectionable.
Since you hardly even know me (quick: am I a boy or a girl?) there is no basis for you to say that you find me objectionable. At best, you might find my views on alternative medicine objectionable, or the way I conduct myself on this board. You really hurt my feelings, you know. Of course, it is easy to insult people over the internet, which is the place where cowards become brave.
It is hard to engage in a meaningful conversation with an intellectual fascist who is intolerant of people who do not share his views. You said:
> So without wishing to be rude, why don't you do us all a favour and go elsewhere and try and irritate people.
Well, actually, TJ, you were rude. I have consulted with my elders, and for the record, TJ, it's official: you're a dumbass. So why don't you go and play with your vitamins or something.
Klavot
PS: Dear Psycho-Babble admninistration, I am sorry for violating your civility guidelines. You are free to block me. There is, after all, little point posting on a medical board where one is subjected to verbal abuse simply for questioning a particular form of medical treatment. But I feel that if you dish out insults like TJ did to me, you should accept the consequences.
Posted by Klavot on April 7, 2007, at 4:46:16
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds? » teejay, posted by Klavot on April 7, 2007, at 3:19:43
I unconditionally retract my last post and apologise for any offence caused to any person, notably TJ. My "dumbass" remark was nothing but a brainless juvenile insult, and should not be taken seriously. I have demonstrated myself to be a hypocrite in that I have personally attacked TJ while deriding him for having previously insulted me.
This is a board dedicated to alternative medicine and meant to offer supportive advice. My queries regarding the efficacy of alternative medicine have no place here.
Klavot
Posted by teejay on April 7, 2007, at 7:42:16
In reply to Apology » Klavot, posted by Klavot on April 7, 2007, at 4:46:16
Thank you klavot, and please accept my apology also.
Perhaps my wording was a little clumsy when I said I find you objectionable. As you have pointed out, its your views, not you as a person that I feel that way about.
I've no problem with people questioning views, it is after all what reaffirms our beliefs.
You mentioned Lars post and how it shifted your view. Because you didnt reply to his lengthy reply, an onlooker would simply deduce that you took no interest in it. I'd also take issue with the fact you now claim ONLY to be questioning homeopathy when your original remarks focussed on orthomolecular treatments.
Briefly on the subject of homeopathy (sorry must go out but want to at least post something up here). In the past couple of years a pair of norwegian physicists doing totally unrelated work found that molecules of water in fact DID have memory and the discussion then moved on to homeopathy as this unrelated work according to the experts, backed up the science of homeopathy. It was something on a news item and i've never re-found the piece so can't quote its source I'm afraid. If my memory serves me correctly though, they were working on ice samples.
I've tried it and I'm not convinced it did anything for me (a difficult premise to be sure about though) but that doesnt mean it does not work for everyone. I certainly wouldn't be confident enough to call someone a liar who claimed to have been cured by homeopathy.
IMO human beings are too full of their own self importance (doctors maybe more so!), and far too readily ignore the millions of years of interaction between our organism and the animals, plants and other nutrients which surround us. Such interactions are far more significant than we'd like to admit.
Regards
TJ
Posted by Quintal on April 7, 2007, at 9:50:13
In reply to Re: Advantages to alternative meds? » teejay, posted by Klavot on April 7, 2007, at 3:19:43
>It is hard to engage in a meaningful conversation with an intellectual fascist who is intolerant of people who do not share his views.
I agree it is hard.
Q
Posted by gardenergirl on April 7, 2007, at 11:16:49
In reply to Re: Apology, posted by teejay on April 7, 2007, at 7:42:16
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Alternative | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.