Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Options
Replies
-
Mandygring wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »I think its bc ppl think their way is the only way and what they learned is it.Mandygring wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »It really would be interesting to hands on see it. Its been a while since I've done any lab work lol
If you hit the 'Quote' link in the post you are responding to, it will appear in your comment (like yours appeared in mine) and will make it much easier to follow what you are saying.
What would be interesting to see hands on?
My favorite lab experience was seeing how different substances effect the heart. (Of course I'm giving the shortened version of it). I'm pretty sure this subject would be just as interesting.
I'm intrigued as to your educational/work background in that you seem to be alluding to having a science background but also insinuating that people trust science over untested assertions simply because it's what they've been taught...
I still believe my comment is correct and was an answer to the op. That being said many ppl have assumed that meant i was for holistic. I do get my flu shot every year and ibprofren for headaches. At the same time I use peppermint or ginger for nausea and hot tea w lemon to sooth a sore throat.
The point here is that the OP is going to a school which takes a lot of money from students, who then go out and take a lot of money from the public, all based on diagnoses and treatments that have no foundation in science.
No one ever paid thousands of dollars to go to school to learn to tell people to drink hot tea for a sore throat. No one ever paid hundreds, even thousands of dollars to a practitioner to tell them to have ginger tea for nausea.
So the woo being peddled by the school the OP is going to isn't harmless herbal remedies, its expensive and potentially harmful bulldust.
So the answer that people think that their way is the only way in relation to the OP is completely problematic because it insinuates that there is legitimacy to diagnosing someone with a non-existent illness is merely a matter of perspective.
Very well said, better than how I said it but conveying what I wanted to convey exactly.
Lol okay guys. Yes I can agree w this completely. There's a time for tea and a time to get serious help.
Yeah exactly. But as stated people don't pay thousands of dollars to attend a holistic medicine college to learn how to drink tea for a sore throat they go there to study alternative medicines in order to become a "doctor" who then goes into the world, has patients and prescribes those patients treatments for sometimes serious illnesses based on what they were told in that college. Treatments that are unproven to be effective, treatments that most of the time are an herbal supplement that slightly alleviates a symptom much in the way a cup of tea would.
Can we all agree that that is not a good thing? Or do you believe a Holistic doctor would tell someone with an actual disease to go to an actual doctor instead of prescribing an alternative treatment?1 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »I think its bc ppl think their way is the only way and what they learned is it.Mandygring wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »It really would be interesting to hands on see it. Its been a while since I've done any lab work lol
If you hit the 'Quote' link in the post you are responding to, it will appear in your comment (like yours appeared in mine) and will make it much easier to follow what you are saying.
What would be interesting to see hands on?
My favorite lab experience was seeing how different substances effect the heart. (Of course I'm giving the shortened version of it). I'm pretty sure this subject would be just as interesting.
I'm intrigued as to your educational/work background in that you seem to be alluding to having a science background but also insinuating that people trust science over untested assertions simply because it's what they've been taught...
I still believe my comment is correct and was an answer to the op. That being said many ppl have assumed that meant i was for holistic. I do get my flu shot every year and ibprofren for headaches. At the same time I use peppermint or ginger for nausea and hot tea w lemon to sooth a sore throat.
The point here is that the OP is going to a school which takes a lot of money from students, who then go out and take a lot of money from the public, all based on diagnoses and treatments that have no foundation in science.
No one ever paid thousands of dollars to go to school to learn to tell people to drink hot tea for a sore throat. No one ever paid hundreds, even thousands of dollars to a practitioner to tell them to have ginger tea for nausea.
So the woo being peddled by the school the OP is going to isn't harmless herbal remedies, its expensive and potentially harmful bulldust.
So the answer that people think that their way is the only way in relation to the OP is completely problematic because it insinuates that there is legitimacy to diagnosing someone with a non-existent illness is merely a matter of perspective.
Very well said, better than how I said it but conveying what I wanted to convey exactly.
Lol okay guys. Yes I can agree w this completely. There's a time for tea and a time to get serious help.
Yeah exactly. But as stated people don't pay thousands of dollars to attend a holistic medicine college to learn how to drink tea for a sore throat they go there to study alternative medicines in order to become a "doctor" who then goes into the world, has patients and prescribes those patients treatments for sometimes serious illnesses based on what they were told in that college. Treatments that are unproven to be effective, treatments that most of the time are an herbal supplement that slightly alleviates a symptom much in the way a cup of tea would.
Can we all agree that that is not a good thing? Or do you believe a Holistic doctor would tell someone with an actual disease to go to an actual doctor instead of prescribing an alternative treatment?
Id hope the person would go to the doctor. My stepmom has just found out she has breast cancer. We aren't taking her to holistic doctor. We may treat symptoms such as nausea w peppermint.2 -
Mandygring wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »I think its bc ppl think their way is the only way and what they learned is it.Mandygring wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »It really would be interesting to hands on see it. Its been a while since I've done any lab work lol
If you hit the 'Quote' link in the post you are responding to, it will appear in your comment (like yours appeared in mine) and will make it much easier to follow what you are saying.
What would be interesting to see hands on?
My favorite lab experience was seeing how different substances effect the heart. (Of course I'm giving the shortened version of it). I'm pretty sure this subject would be just as interesting.
I'm intrigued as to your educational/work background in that you seem to be alluding to having a science background but also insinuating that people trust science over untested assertions simply because it's what they've been taught...
I still believe my comment is correct and was an answer to the op. That being said many ppl have assumed that meant i was for holistic. I do get my flu shot every year and ibprofren for headaches. At the same time I use peppermint or ginger for nausea and hot tea w lemon to sooth a sore throat.
The point here is that the OP is going to a school which takes a lot of money from students, who then go out and take a lot of money from the public, all based on diagnoses and treatments that have no foundation in science.
No one ever paid thousands of dollars to go to school to learn to tell people to drink hot tea for a sore throat. No one ever paid hundreds, even thousands of dollars to a practitioner to tell them to have ginger tea for nausea.
So the woo being peddled by the school the OP is going to isn't harmless herbal remedies, its expensive and potentially harmful bulldust.
So the answer that people think that their way is the only way in relation to the OP is completely problematic because it insinuates that there is legitimacy to diagnosing someone with a non-existent illness is merely a matter of perspective.
Very well said, better than how I said it but conveying what I wanted to convey exactly.
Lol okay guys. Yes I can agree w this completely. There's a time for tea and a time to get serious help.
Yeah exactly. But as stated people don't pay thousands of dollars to attend a holistic medicine college to learn how to drink tea for a sore throat they go there to study alternative medicines in order to become a "doctor" who then goes into the world, has patients and prescribes those patients treatments for sometimes serious illnesses based on what they were told in that college. Treatments that are unproven to be effective, treatments that most of the time are an herbal supplement that slightly alleviates a symptom much in the way a cup of tea would.
Can we all agree that that is not a good thing? Or do you believe a Holistic doctor would tell someone with an actual disease to go to an actual doctor instead of prescribing an alternative treatment?
Id hope the person would go to the doctor. My stepmom has just found out she has breast cancer. We aren't taking her to holistic doctor. We may treat symptoms such as nausea w peppermint.
Exactly. But the problem with institutes and colleges that teach and provide degrees in alternative or holistic medicine is it legitimizes it to the point where people graduate feeling like they are now doctors, open practices as "doctors" and then people go to them like they are a doctor, sometimes with a serious condition, and then this "doctor" suggest a treatment that basically by definition hasn't been proven to work. That frankly puts that persons life in unnecessary risk.
I have no problem with using nutrition, diet, herbal supplement, natural treatments etc etc for symptoms...but when you learn about those things, call yourself a doctor and then start diagnosing patients as if you are a doctor then that is dangerous and that is wrong. To someone who is pursuing that as the OP is I would advise them against it. That is all. Do I do that because I am biased by my education? Yeah I guess, but in the same way everyone is "biased" by knowledge.0 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »I think its bc ppl think their way is the only way and what they learned is it.Mandygring wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »It really would be interesting to hands on see it. Its been a while since I've done any lab work lol
If you hit the 'Quote' link in the post you are responding to, it will appear in your comment (like yours appeared in mine) and will make it much easier to follow what you are saying.
What would be interesting to see hands on?
My favorite lab experience was seeing how different substances effect the heart. (Of course I'm giving the shortened version of it). I'm pretty sure this subject would be just as interesting.
I'm intrigued as to your educational/work background in that you seem to be alluding to having a science background but also insinuating that people trust science over untested assertions simply because it's what they've been taught...
I still believe my comment is correct and was an answer to the op. That being said many ppl have assumed that meant i was for holistic. I do get my flu shot every year and ibprofren for headaches. At the same time I use peppermint or ginger for nausea and hot tea w lemon to sooth a sore throat.
The point here is that the OP is going to a school which takes a lot of money from students, who then go out and take a lot of money from the public, all based on diagnoses and treatments that have no foundation in science.
No one ever paid thousands of dollars to go to school to learn to tell people to drink hot tea for a sore throat. No one ever paid hundreds, even thousands of dollars to a practitioner to tell them to have ginger tea for nausea.
So the woo being peddled by the school the OP is going to isn't harmless herbal remedies, its expensive and potentially harmful bulldust.
So the answer that people think that their way is the only way in relation to the OP is completely problematic because it insinuates that there is legitimacy to diagnosing someone with a non-existent illness is merely a matter of perspective.
Very well said, better than how I said it but conveying what I wanted to convey exactly.
Lol okay guys. Yes I can agree w this completely. There's a time for tea and a time to get serious help.
Yeah exactly. But as stated people don't pay thousands of dollars to attend a holistic medicine college to learn how to drink tea for a sore throat they go there to study alternative medicines in order to become a "doctor" who then goes into the world, has patients and prescribes those patients treatments for sometimes serious illnesses based on what they were told in that college. Treatments that are unproven to be effective, treatments that most of the time are an herbal supplement that slightly alleviates a symptom much in the way a cup of tea would.
Can we all agree that that is not a good thing? Or do you believe a Holistic doctor would tell someone with an actual disease to go to an actual doctor instead of prescribing an alternative treatment?
Id hope the person would go to the doctor. My stepmom has just found out she has breast cancer. We aren't taking her to holistic doctor. We may treat symptoms such as nausea w peppermint.
Exactly. But the problem with institutes and colleges that teach and provide degrees in alternative or holistic medicine is it legitimizes it to the point where people graduate feeling like they are now doctors, open practices as "doctors" and then people go to them like they are a doctor, sometimes with a serious condition, and then this "doctor" suggest a treatment that basically by definition hasn't been proven to work. That frankly puts that persons life in unnecessary risk.
I have no problem with using nutrition, diet, herbal supplement, natural treatments etc etc for symptoms...but when you learn about those things, call yourself a doctor and then start diagnosing patients as if you are a doctor then that is dangerous and that is wrong. To someone who is pursuing that as the OP is I would advise them against it. That is all. Do I do that because I am biased by my education? Yeah I guess, but in the same way everyone is "biased" by knowledge.
Yes. Personal example - my dad was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer about three years ago. For those who don't know, pancreatic cancer is frequently diagnosed late and has a very low survival rate. My dad had a very complicated surgery ( and second emergency surgery when the stitches from the first burst), radiation, and chemo. He made it through and has had three years of good health.
About 6 weeks ago they found another tumor in his pancreas. It is small and the prognosis is relatively good; average of 2 to 3 years life expectancy is what he was quoted. But there is no cure.
Dad is preparing for radiation now, chemo eventually. In parallel he will be managing his diet and symptoms; looking at acupuncture and Marijuana for pain management, and his wife will definitely be keeping an eye on his sweets.
We all accept there is no cure and are dealing with it. I would be immensely angry at anyone who offered false promises that caused my Dad's quality of life to be worse or even shorten it for financial gain.4 -
sunfastrose wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »I think its bc ppl think their way is the only way and what they learned is it.Mandygring wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »It really would be interesting to hands on see it. Its been a while since I've done any lab work lol
If you hit the 'Quote' link in the post you are responding to, it will appear in your comment (like yours appeared in mine) and will make it much easier to follow what you are saying.
What would be interesting to see hands on?
My favorite lab experience was seeing how different substances effect the heart. (Of course I'm giving the shortened version of it). I'm pretty sure this subject would be just as interesting.
I'm intrigued as to your educational/work background in that you seem to be alluding to having a science background but also insinuating that people trust science over untested assertions simply because it's what they've been taught...
I still believe my comment is correct and was an answer to the op. That being said many ppl have assumed that meant i was for holistic. I do get my flu shot every year and ibprofren for headaches. At the same time I use peppermint or ginger for nausea and hot tea w lemon to sooth a sore throat.
The point here is that the OP is going to a school which takes a lot of money from students, who then go out and take a lot of money from the public, all based on diagnoses and treatments that have no foundation in science.
No one ever paid thousands of dollars to go to school to learn to tell people to drink hot tea for a sore throat. No one ever paid hundreds, even thousands of dollars to a practitioner to tell them to have ginger tea for nausea.
So the woo being peddled by the school the OP is going to isn't harmless herbal remedies, its expensive and potentially harmful bulldust.
So the answer that people think that their way is the only way in relation to the OP is completely problematic because it insinuates that there is legitimacy to diagnosing someone with a non-existent illness is merely a matter of perspective.
Very well said, better than how I said it but conveying what I wanted to convey exactly.
Lol okay guys. Yes I can agree w this completely. There's a time for tea and a time to get serious help.
Yeah exactly. But as stated people don't pay thousands of dollars to attend a holistic medicine college to learn how to drink tea for a sore throat they go there to study alternative medicines in order to become a "doctor" who then goes into the world, has patients and prescribes those patients treatments for sometimes serious illnesses based on what they were told in that college. Treatments that are unproven to be effective, treatments that most of the time are an herbal supplement that slightly alleviates a symptom much in the way a cup of tea would.
Can we all agree that that is not a good thing? Or do you believe a Holistic doctor would tell someone with an actual disease to go to an actual doctor instead of prescribing an alternative treatment?
Id hope the person would go to the doctor. My stepmom has just found out she has breast cancer. We aren't taking her to holistic doctor. We may treat symptoms such as nausea w peppermint.
Exactly. But the problem with institutes and colleges that teach and provide degrees in alternative or holistic medicine is it legitimizes it to the point where people graduate feeling like they are now doctors, open practices as "doctors" and then people go to them like they are a doctor, sometimes with a serious condition, and then this "doctor" suggest a treatment that basically by definition hasn't been proven to work. That frankly puts that persons life in unnecessary risk.
I have no problem with using nutrition, diet, herbal supplement, natural treatments etc etc for symptoms...but when you learn about those things, call yourself a doctor and then start diagnosing patients as if you are a doctor then that is dangerous and that is wrong. To someone who is pursuing that as the OP is I would advise them against it. That is all. Do I do that because I am biased by my education? Yeah I guess, but in the same way everyone is "biased" by knowledge.
Yes. Personal example - my dad was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer about three years ago. For those who don't know, pancreatic cancer is frequently diagnosed late and has a very low survival rate. My dad had a very complicated surgery ( and second emergency surgery when the stitches from the first burst), radiation, and chemo. He made it through and has had three years of good health.
About 6 weeks ago they found another tumor in his pancreas. It is small and the prognosis is relatively good; average of 2 to 3 years life expectancy is what he was quoted. But there is no cure.
Dad is preparing for radiation now, chemo eventually. In parallel he will be managing his diet and symptoms; looking at acupuncture and Marijuana for pain management, and his wife will definitely be keeping an eye on his sweets.
We all accept there is no cure and are dealing with it. I would be immensely angry at anyone who offered false promises that caused my Dad's quality of life to be worse or even shorten it for financial gain.
I'm so sorry to hear this. I hope the best for you all2 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »Alatariel75 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »I think its bc ppl think their way is the only way and what they learned is it.Mandygring wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »It really would be interesting to hands on see it. Its been a while since I've done any lab work lol
If you hit the 'Quote' link in the post you are responding to, it will appear in your comment (like yours appeared in mine) and will make it much easier to follow what you are saying.
What would be interesting to see hands on?
My favorite lab experience was seeing how different substances effect the heart. (Of course I'm giving the shortened version of it). I'm pretty sure this subject would be just as interesting.
I'm intrigued as to your educational/work background in that you seem to be alluding to having a science background but also insinuating that people trust science over untested assertions simply because it's what they've been taught...
I still believe my comment is correct and was an answer to the op. That being said many ppl have assumed that meant i was for holistic. I do get my flu shot every year and ibprofren for headaches. At the same time I use peppermint or ginger for nausea and hot tea w lemon to sooth a sore throat.
The point here is that the OP is going to a school which takes a lot of money from students, who then go out and take a lot of money from the public, all based on diagnoses and treatments that have no foundation in science.
No one ever paid thousands of dollars to go to school to learn to tell people to drink hot tea for a sore throat. No one ever paid hundreds, even thousands of dollars to a practitioner to tell them to have ginger tea for nausea.
So the woo being peddled by the school the OP is going to isn't harmless herbal remedies, its expensive and potentially harmful bulldust.
So the answer that people think that their way is the only way in relation to the OP is completely problematic because it insinuates that there is legitimacy to diagnosing someone with a non-existent illness is merely a matter of perspective.
Very well said, better than how I said it but conveying what I wanted to convey exactly.
Lol okay guys. Yes I can agree w this completely. There's a time for tea and a time to get serious help.
Yeah exactly. But as stated people don't pay thousands of dollars to attend a holistic medicine college to learn how to drink tea for a sore throat they go there to study alternative medicines in order to become a "doctor" who then goes into the world, has patients and prescribes those patients treatments for sometimes serious illnesses based on what they were told in that college. Treatments that are unproven to be effective, treatments that most of the time are an herbal supplement that slightly alleviates a symptom much in the way a cup of tea would.
Can we all agree that that is not a good thing? Or do you believe a Holistic doctor would tell someone with an actual disease to go to an actual doctor instead of prescribing an alternative treatment?
Id hope the person would go to the doctor. My stepmom has just found out she has breast cancer. We aren't taking her to holistic doctor. We may treat symptoms such as nausea w peppermint.
Exactly. But the problem with institutes and colleges that teach and provide degrees in alternative or holistic medicine is it legitimizes it to the point where people graduate feeling like they are now doctors, open practices as "doctors" and then people go to them like they are a doctor, sometimes with a serious condition, and then this "doctor" suggest a treatment that basically by definition hasn't been proven to work. That frankly puts that persons life in unnecessary risk.
I have no problem with using nutrition, diet, herbal supplement, natural treatments etc etc for symptoms...but when you learn about those things, call yourself a doctor and then start diagnosing patients as if you are a doctor then that is dangerous and that is wrong. To someone who is pursuing that as the OP is I would advise them against it. That is all. Do I do that because I am biased by my education? Yeah I guess, but in the same way everyone is "biased" by knowledge.
The problem goes beyond that, though, in a culture sense.
I've known people whose deep mistrust of mainstream medicine and so-called Big Pharma was kindled and fed by the unscrupulous fringe of the alt-health community, to the point where those people rejected appropriate, needful medical care.
Those people didn't always fall for the alternative treatment, but perhaps rejected what they called "cut, poison, burn" cancer treatment out of hand, for example. Or they rejected child vaccination because of nonsense about side effects.
That, too, is on the heads of the worst alt-med scammers: Creating and nurturing the anti-scientific fear, confusion and misinformation that turns people away from mainstream medicine.
(Don't get me wrong: I think anyone should be permitted to reject any particular treatment for any reason or no reason . . but ideally, that would be a rational process. To the extent that 3rd parties sow and cultivate irrationality, they bear some responsibility for the negative outcomes.)
3 -
JerSchmare wrote: »I just stopped in to see if you folks came to a consensus yet.
I don't think so.0 -
Mandygring wrote: »I would love to actually have the experience of testing both in a laboratory.
It happens all the time, usually with poor results for alt-med (though not always).
Anecdotally:
I'm kinda old (62). Since my childhood, there's been alt-med under various names (holistic/wholistic health, "traditional" or "non-Western" medicine, complementary therapies, etc.).
I've seen a few things (some of the higher-numbered vitamins, for example) move from being trumpeted by alt-med advocates based on limited (or no) evidence, to being accepted as mainstream science once more and better evidence accumulated. Usually things on that track were not originated by the alt-med establishment, BTW: They were originated by mainstream scientific researchers, and alt-med advocates were more willing to run with limited, poorer-quality initial evidence.
I've also seen the alt-med industry, through that whole period, continue trumpeting things that have been repeatedly debunked. (Kind of makes me wonder which party looks more like it's cynically trying to run a conspiracy, frankly).
Conclusion: The alt-med batting average really isn't that great, and things that turn out to be valid do move up to the big leagues.
Unlike some, I don't completely ignore alt-med sources, but I do (1) examine the nature and history of their evidence; (2) recognize that relatively new alt-med enthusiasms are slightly more worthy of attention, because the truly promising ones do get tested in labs, and some of them may eventually be scientifically validated; (3) seriously consider whether there's adequate safety evidence, even where efficacy evidence may be new/weak.
Ultimately it comes down to a risk management discussion.
Traditional Medicine tends to be very low risk with a moderate to high reward profile and known limits on efficacy.
Alt Med tends to have a much higher risk profile without a correspondingly high reward profile.
HOWEVER,
when it comes to extreme/terminal conditions and "spontaneous remission" there's limited scientific support for attitude having a positive contribution.
It doesn't seem to matter all that much where the positive attitude comes from experimentally, whether prayer, or drinking green sludge. People who hold on to positivity and hope appear to experience a much greater percentage of spontaneous remissions than those who surrender to a grim attitude and abandon hope.
3 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »I would love to actually have the experience of testing both in a laboratory.
It happens all the time, usually with poor results for alt-med (though not always).
Anecdotally:
I'm kinda old (62). Since my childhood, there's been alt-med under various names (holistic/wholistic health, "traditional" or "non-Western" medicine, complementary therapies, etc.).
I've seen a few things (some of the higher-numbered vitamins, for example) move from being trumpeted by alt-med advocates based on limited (or no) evidence, to being accepted as mainstream science once more and better evidence accumulated. Usually things on that track were not originated by the alt-med establishment, BTW: They were originated by mainstream scientific researchers, and alt-med advocates were more willing to run with limited, poorer-quality initial evidence.
I've also seen the alt-med industry, through that whole period, continue trumpeting things that have been repeatedly debunked. (Kind of makes me wonder which party looks more like it's cynically trying to run a conspiracy, frankly).
Conclusion: The alt-med batting average really isn't that great, and things that turn out to be valid do move up to the big leagues.
Unlike some, I don't completely ignore alt-med sources, but I do (1) examine the nature and history of their evidence; (2) recognize that relatively new alt-med enthusiasms are slightly more worthy of attention, because the truly promising ones do get tested in labs, and some of them may eventually be scientifically validated; (3) seriously consider whether there's adequate safety evidence, even where efficacy evidence may be new/weak.
Ultimately it comes down to a risk management discussion.
Traditional Medicine tends to be very low risk with a moderate to high reward profile and known limits on efficacy.
Alt Med tends to have a much higher risk profile without a correspondingly high reward profile.
HOWEVER,
when it comes to extreme/terminal conditions and "spontaneous remission" there's limited scientific support for attitude having a positive contribution.
It doesn't seem to matter all that much where the positive attitude comes from experimentally, whether prayer, or drinking green sludge. People who hold on to positivity and hope appear to experience a much greater percentage of spontaneous remissions than those who surrender to a grim attitude and abandon hope.
Can't give you a cite, but i remember reading pretty persuasive research some years back that "positive attitude" had been completely debunked as a contributor to breast cancer outcomes. Negativity-filled grumps lived just as long.
Stuck in my mind at the time because I had stage III (advanced) breast cancer at age 45, husband had recently died at 45 of another cancer, mom died a few years earlier of breast cancer, I was scared, I had read the B.S. about positive attitude, and worried I couldn't be positive enough. It made that rather clear and decent-quality research stick in my mind. (17 years ago, BTW: Go, team grump!)
(Not a placebo effect debunk though: Faith in a "cure" has curious power. Faith in a treatment and a positive or hopeful attitude are different things.)8 -
stanmann571 wrote: »Mandygring wrote: »I would love to actually have the experience of testing both in a laboratory.
It happens all the time, usually with poor results for alt-med (though not always).
Anecdotally:
I'm kinda old (62). Since my childhood, there's been alt-med under various names (holistic/wholistic health, "traditional" or "non-Western" medicine, complementary therapies, etc.).
I've seen a few things (some of the higher-numbered vitamins, for example) move from being trumpeted by alt-med advocates based on limited (or no) evidence, to being accepted as mainstream science once more and better evidence accumulated. Usually things on that track were not originated by the alt-med establishment, BTW: They were originated by mainstream scientific researchers, and alt-med advocates were more willing to run with limited, poorer-quality initial evidence.
I've also seen the alt-med industry, through that whole period, continue trumpeting things that have been repeatedly debunked. (Kind of makes me wonder which party looks more like it's cynically trying to run a conspiracy, frankly).
Conclusion: The alt-med batting average really isn't that great, and things that turn out to be valid do move up to the big leagues.
Unlike some, I don't completely ignore alt-med sources, but I do (1) examine the nature and history of their evidence; (2) recognize that relatively new alt-med enthusiasms are slightly more worthy of attention, because the truly promising ones do get tested in labs, and some of them may eventually be scientifically validated; (3) seriously consider whether there's adequate safety evidence, even where efficacy evidence may be new/weak.
Ultimately it comes down to a risk management discussion.
Traditional Medicine tends to be very low risk with a moderate to high reward profile and known limits on efficacy.
Alt Med tends to have a much higher risk profile without a correspondingly high reward profile.
HOWEVER,
when it comes to extreme/terminal conditions and "spontaneous remission" there's limited scientific support for attitude having a positive contribution.
It doesn't seem to matter all that much where the positive attitude comes from experimentally, whether prayer, or drinking green sludge. People who hold on to positivity and hope appear to experience a much greater percentage of spontaneous remissions than those who surrender to a grim attitude and abandon hope.
Can't give you a cite, but i remember reading pretty persuasive research some years back that "positive attitude" had been completely debunked as a contributor to breast cancer outcomes. Negativity-filled grumps lived just as long.
Stuck in my mind at the time because I had stage III (advanced) breast cancer at age 45, husband had recently died at 45 of another cancer, mom died a few years earlier of breast cancer, I was scared, I had read the B.S. about positive attitude, and worried I couldn't be positive enough. It made that rather clear and decent-quality research stick in my mind. (17 years ago, BTW: Go, team grump!)
(Not a placebo effect debunk though: Faith in a "cure" has curious power. Faith in a treatment and a positive or hopeful attitude are different things.)
The one I was thinking of was from 5 years back or so, and you're right, There does appear to be a need for an object. Prayer or green smoothies.2 -
One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.9
-
snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Does not being helped count as a side effect?6 -
NorthCascades wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Does not being helped count as a side effect?
Sure, it counts if you want it to.2 -
My cousin got sick so I slaughtered a goat. My cousin is still sick and now I don't have a goat. I went with a traditional cure because I was afraid of side effects.10
-
NorthCascades wrote: »snowflake954 wrote: »One thing that has not been discussed at all are side effects of modern medicine and it's cures. I think alot of people go the alternate route because they are afraid of the side effects. It's true that modern medicine is generally more effective in it's cures, but it does have costs. Holistic medicine gives hope of a cure without consequences. I think people find that part of it appealing.
Does not being helped count as a side effect?
Actually yes - this has multiple MedDRA codes depending on specifics: Lack of pharmaceutical effect, diminished pharmaceutical effect, No observed pharmaceutical effect.6 -
I wonder if mathematician George Boole's wife was a believer in the holistic approach. I cringed when I read how he died:
"In late November 1864, Boole walked, in heavy rain, from his home at Lichfield Cottage in Ballintemple[37] to the university, a distance of three miles, and lectured wearing his wet clothes.[38] He soon became ill, developing pneumonia. As his wife believed that remedies should resemble their cause, she put her husband to bed and poured buckets of water over him – the wet having brought on his illness.[38][39][40] Boole's condition worsened and on 8 December 1864, he died of fever-induced pleural effusion." - wikpedia1 -
I wonder if mathematician George Boole's wife was a believer in the holistic approach. I cringed when I read how he died:
"In late November 1864, Boole walked, in heavy rain, from his home at Lichfield Cottage in Ballintemple[37] to the university, a distance of three miles, and lectured wearing his wet clothes.[38] He soon became ill, developing pneumonia. As his wife believed that remedies should resemble their cause, she put her husband to bed and poured buckets of water over him – the wet having brought on his illness.[38][39][40] Boole's condition worsened and on 8 December 1864, he died of fever-induced pleural effusion." - wikpedia
Or she disliked him lol2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392K Introduce Yourself
- 43.6K Getting Started
- 259.8K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.7K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 401 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.8K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 995 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.4K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions