"Brain retraining for ME" reminds me of witchdoctors/quacks and syphillis

[Firestormm]

Do you think that if they developed an effective treatment for our condition that 'talking therapies' and 'exercise-based' treatments would no longer be recommended?

What I mean to say is, that in the absence* of anything else, is this not a reason for CBT/GET ruling in the view of the medical profession? That something is 'better' than nothing?

Also, as our criteria are generally regarded as being 'too broad' people do report CBT/GET helping ergo - why pull them as 'treatments'?

(*My concern with this general thought has always been that effective treatments are available to help better manage our primary physical (and yes mental) symptoms.

It's just that they are not all made widely available all of the time or recognised by the relevant health authorities i.e. they don't get offered to everybody and prescribed (should they be deemed appropriate based on patient circumstance etc.))

 

[Vitalic]

As for alternative medicine, I think that it both has a deserved and undeserved component to its alleged bad reputation. There is a lot of medical science that has found its origins in alternative medicine. Over time (and this could take another century or more) all the good things from alternative medicine will most likely become part of standard medicine.

Great posts alex/silverblade, can't say I disagree with much you've said and the distinction between religious thinking in science and science being akin to religion is an important one, and it's true that religious or dogmatic thinking can pervade any endeavour and science is certainly not immune. I would have to challenge this argument about alternative medicine though, it has been said that there is no such thing as alternative medicine, only alternatives to medicine, and in that sense it is not surprising that anything which is actual valid, evidence based medicine gets integrated into medical science and ceases to become alternative. This would not apply to most alternative medicine though, you could not justify homeopathy or faith healing based on the notion that one day it might be integrated into medical science, these things have been demonstrated as mumbo jumbo and yet are still big business.

What I mean to say is, that in the absence* of anything else, is this not a reason for CBT/GET ruling in the view of the medical profession? That something is 'better' than nothing?

If that were really the case then research into other modes of treatment or the physiological mechanisms behind the illness would not have been inhibited by the same degree, although the practitioners I've met have been honest about the limitations of their treatments and the fact that they are based on management of the illness rather than treatment of it, at the same time they rather perversely believe that no better alternatives will be forthcoming which is precisely why it's been so detrimental to the overall cause. If you believe the something you have is the only something you'll ever have why look for another something?

 

[jeffrez]

The brain controls the body, interfaces with the immune system, and is very prone to getting into negative feedback loops (e.g., coma), especially when dealing with delicate balances related to HPAA, neurotransmitters, and hormones.

I have severe CFS, and have had complete remission in the past from EEG neurofeedback, like flicking a light switch. To deny that the brain is involved in ME/CFS or that it can be affected by various forms of retraining is not an accurate or helpful approach, imho.

 

[alex3619]

This would not apply to most alternative medicine though, you could not justify homeopathy or faith healing based on the notion that one day it might be integrated into medical science, these things have been demonstrated as mumbo jumbo and yet are still big business.

Hmmm, can't say I disagree Vitalic. I looked into the principles of homeopathy many years ago. It is a holdout of European Pagan magic (law of similarity if I recall correctly). It is essentially witch-doctoring. That does not mean that some of its treatments don't work, it means that the reasons given for why they might work are wrong. I also think the placebo effect is heavily used in homeopathic medicine. Also many homeopathic treatments are herbal or mineral based, and the real impact, if any, is probably explicable in normal chemistry terms. So in a very real sense, an historical sense, homeopathy IS religion.

When I say that that the good things from alternative medicine will be integrated into conventional medicine, I meant the things that will eventually be shown to be effective, cost-effective, or effective with minimal side-effects. Some of those might be homeopathic remedies, but I doubt very much that homeopathic theory will have any place in future medicine.

Its simlar with herbal medicine. Herbs are natural, but many are seriously toxic too. Over time I think this knowledge will be codified and explained, but this is slow as there is very little money behind such research compared to drug research. So the better ones will join mainstream medicine, and the worst ones will be banned.

It is worrying though that some of the more effective alternative medicine practices are likely to be banned, or at least governments are trying to ban them. I was told for example, just several days ago, that potassium supplements are now only available legally with a doctor's script in Australia. I don't know if this is true, I have yet to confirm it, but it is worrying. While vitamins and herbs and so on can be toxic, their toxicity is mild compared to most drugs. Some very few vitamins, and a few minerals, have higher toxicity, and I do see the value in limiting dosage maximums in tablets with those substances, but this is a minority of supplements.

I am not even going to bother discussing faith healing other than this: if it makes you feel better, great, but to me it is more psychological support using shamanistic methods, it doesn't address the disease state.

The way I see it is specific techniques and principles from alternative medicine will become mainstream, but that is only a small subset of what is out there.

I may have more to say on biopsychosocial approaches later, probably not this thread though. Like evidence based medicine the underlying principle has merit, but unfortunately both BPS and EBM tend to be abused in practice.

Bye, Alex

 

[SilverbladeTE]

Alex
As usual, our politicians are prostituting themselves to the pharma corps, who wish to control ALL the "medical world" at any cost.
Thus, supplements, even genetics and surgical aids are being taken over by the dangerous bastards.

Strong language but hey, many Average Joes simply have no idea the evil and threat these pendejos offer.
I'd rather have a murderous dictator or two than those monsters, cause as horrible as the former are, they eventually DIE, corproations do not.
We have made "undead monsters" in our own image, vampires who suck on our very lives, meh :/

And very valid comment on homeopathy etc
thing is end of the day, a mentally "reasonably stable adult" must be allowed the opportunity for any medical treatment they wish, that does not harm others and they can afford if non-essential (if they believe it will save their lives then, like it or not, it IS essential to them)
Ayn Rand, as evil often does, used a half truth as the most dangerous of all lies: villains often cloak themselves in the garb of so-called altruism.
Many of histories worst criminals truly believed they were doing "a good thing ot help people" (see The Inquisition for example)
So, some dangerous bozos try and cliam that "alternate/herbal/vitamin treatment" etc should be banned because it is "Not in the patients' best interest".
BOLLOCKS, it is pure arrogance, they are doing it because it does not fit THEIR "accptable world view", or, they are corrupt and wish to help enable the corporations to have a monopoly on Human Health and bring us to a technological damnation thereby...

meant in non-religious sense of "damnation"..but hey, that too for the assclowns responsible, lol.
Those who have your health in their hands, have you by the balls, it's a horrendous evil, who needs gulags and gas chambers, when they can deny your child health care instead if you are "politicially/religiously/racially/socially undersirable" ?

Steve Jobs had every right to try alternate therapy for his cancer, even if it lead ot his death, because...once you abrogate folks' free will where it doesn't seriously harm others, you are one one terrible slippery slope. I may think he was a tad foollish, but would never dream of stopping such a choice.

Also, in science, we need dissenting voices, even the ones who may seem deluded or such, as sometimes they are the ones time proves to have been right and you always need questioning voices, a point oft missed by both sides of certian debates is the importance of and respect "Doubting Thomas" had.

Likewise, I think those who believe HIV doesn't cause AIDS are wrong, but I respect some of those who hold such views, have strong support for fair dash of scepticism and scrutiny on HIV/AIDS etc (mostly on origin), and respect anyone's right to not agree with Authority on such...except when it comes ot possibly infecting an unwitting person.