Covid and the Media

[Wishful]

You point out the "shortcomings" of Naturopathic Medicine, and how it compares so unfavorably to conventional medicine. I'm just going to mention a few things:

Darn, I thought you were going to mention a few things to counter the claims of shortcomings, and I would like to see that. Examples of shortcomings of traditional medicine--while valid--do not counter the shortcomings of naturopathic medicine. The main shortcoming to me is that the claims for naturopathic medicine far outstrip the evidence for them. Naturopathic medicine will cure every disease...if you believe all the marketing claims. Actual evidence that remedy x will actually treat a disease is far harder to find. Clinical evidence for some (many?) traditional medicines may be flawed, but at least overall it's more than exists for naturopathic medicines.

I do believe that some herbs and other such things can be effective treatments for some diseases. It's just that there is an overwhelming amount of marketing claims lacking any evidence whatsoever. I'm not sure that reading naturopathic magazines, or even going to a naturopath, would be any more effective at finding the herb that actually would treat a specific condition for a specific person than if they just tried plant bits at random (with a guide to toxic plants handy).

 

[andyguitar]

If it is the scientists who have got something wrong, then it's not the media's fault; the media would just be faithfully reporting what a scientific study or a scientific expert has said.

But the media decides what scientific experts it favours.

 

[Wayne]

Actual evidence that remedy x will actually treat a disease is far harder to find. Clinical evidence for some (many?) traditional medicines may be flawed, but at least overall it's more than exists for naturopathic medicines.

@Wishful -- Again, we're talking about two very different models of the best way to approach health care. One of those big differences is that the conventional model for the most part uses very dangerous drugs, that have the potential to (and do) kill or maim hundreds of thousands of people per year, and leave millions with damaged brains. Just one reason they're so dangerous is because of what precisely you point out; the clinical evidence is flawed.

NDs consider this approach to be absurd. Even though I assume they all consider conventional medicines when necessary, they just don't turn to them as their one and only orientation. They prefer instead to use much safer therapies that don't kill or harm, including recommending certain lifestyle changes. They, in general, strive to improve the foundational aspects of a unique individual. It's always trial and error, with no one remedy that's going to be effective for all people. I consider this approach to be eminently more sensible than the conventional model.

Regarding how hard it is to find evidence for the Naturopathic model: Evidence for the most part is defined by the creators of the drug oriented approach. I don't understand why people consider this to be the one and only valid way of assessing effectiveness. Don't doctors' years of clinical experience count for something, even though their cumulative knowledge is not written in some scientific publication somewhere? I think it should be kept in mind that millions of people seek out this kind of care every year, even when they usually have to pay for this out of pocket. -- And there are good reasons for that.

Just a quick note on "scientific publications". Editors of some of these publications are now publicly decrying the pervasive conflicts of interest that are now almost routine; at least one has resigned in protest. How can anybody consider what comes out of these publications to be based 100% on science, when the editors themselves are sounding the alarm(s) that it may not be?

 

[Wishful]

Don't doctors' years of clinical experience count for something, even though their cumulative knowledge is not written in some scientific publication somewhere?

Not without some hard evidence. A doctor can claim anything he likes, but simple years of practice don't make it true. He might even believe that he's curing patients, but without proper procedures, there's no way to know whether the patients even had the disease that was claimed to be cured.

I think it should be kept in mind that millions of people seek out this kind of care every year, even when they usually have to pay for this out of pocket. -- And there are good reasons for that.

Millions (billions?) of people also pay for religious services. This doesn't prove that all--or any--of the faiths have a real basis. It just proves that many people believe claims without evidence because they want to believe what is claimed (cure for this or that, swallowing a daily pill replaces exercise and good diet, eternal afterlife). People buy lottery tickets believing that somehow the laws of probabilities don't apply to them. Yes, this type of belief also applies to, and is abused by, many traditional pharmaceuticals.

I have gone to several naturopaths. Not impressed.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

Not to say that there are no benefits to be had, but going to a conventional doctor, and putting our lives in the hands of our current medical system is one of the most dangerous things a person can do, in my estimation anyway. From my perspective, major aspects of conventional health care is not at all based on science, but much more so on greed and manipulation. And in some cases, just plain ol' ignorance.

Based upon my lifetime of personal experiences, I entirely agree with your well stated- observations @Wayne.

And how often do the science based investigations look into the interaction of all these various commonly prescribed yet quite potentially dangerous substances...?

 

[Wishful]

And how often do the science based investigations look into the interaction of all these various commonly prescribed yet quite potentially dangerous substances...?

Sadly, it's probably cheaper to lobby (or bribe) some politicians to set the rules so that such studies aren't allowed.

 

[Wayne]

but without proper procedures, there's no way to know whether the patients even had the disease that was claimed to be cured.

What if an ND, or a group of NDs in an office, or an entire organization of thousands of NDs all report the same thing(s)? Doesn't that count for something?

 

[Rufous McKinney]

Don't doctors' years of clinical experience count for something, even though their cumulative knowledge is not written in some scientific publication somewhere?

You'd think experience would be valued.

You'd think 2000 or more years of- working with suites of natural herbs as is done in Chinese, or Tibetan, or Ayurvedic systems- would be viewed as having some value.

Take one issue- teeth. The dry mouth side effect of TONS of the favorite phamaceuticals- left my mother miserable for, oh, her last 18 years.

Chinese herbs exist which- fix all that. Its sad, so sad- when I read the suffering of others, who have been deprived of access to- this remarkable healing system.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

Examples of shortcomings of traditional medicine

This review article examines drug-drug interactions...Enjoy. (from southern India)

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6463504/

"A total of 763 drugs with 125 discrete types were prescribed in 155 patients with an average of 4.9 drugs per patient. One hundred and eight minor, 169 significant, and 24 serious potential DDIs were identified."

 

[Rufous McKinney]

This is interesting reading- this is an FDA letter to some retailer marketing some herbal products with medical claims.

https://www.fda.gov/inspections-com...s-llc-aka-advanced-nootropics-557887-02052019

So maybe our problem/issue is it should not require $350M dollars to- examine a substance to determine if in fact it can be used for treatment of human ailments. When ONLY patentable products are ALLOWED thru the existing system- we have basically created a dead end. We've created a system which by definition will never examine substances that cannot generate VAST Profit.

 

[Rufous McKinney]

I don't equate Chinese Traditional Medicine with Naturalpathic Medicine. CTM is: a specific protocol with extensive history of deployment. Extensive literature.

The lack of a system in western herbal medicine- is one reason I prefer CTM.

 

[Wishful]

What if an ND, or a group of NDs in an office, or an entire organization of thousands of NDs all report the same thing(s)? Doesn't that count for something?

Certainly it counts for something. It doesn't count as properly tested evidence though. If it's something that thousands of NDs report as a reliable treatment, it should be easy to write that up for peer review, so that experts can determine if the methodology was valid. It might just be that one person made a claim, and a whole bunch of other NDs simply accepted the claim and looked for examples that fit what they wanted to see, ignoring counterevidence. That's the sort of thing peer review is supposed to find.

 

[Wishful]

CTM is: a specific protocol with extensive history of deployment. Extensive literature.

...and a nonsense basis (four humours, magical energy). I agree that there is some valuable knowledge in TCM and other eastern practices, but it seems to be resting on a false foundation. I agree with your other statement, that Western Medicine financial interests will want to block proper testing of remedies discovered by other knowledge bases.

I would certainly consider taking alternative treatments for some conditions, but I'd first check what the peer-reviewed journals have to say about them. Then I'd weight the evidence and decide whether it was worth trying. I wouldn't trust my health to unproven claims by the alternative medicine industry. I don't believe that they are any less driven by greed than Big Pharma. BP just has more resources available to exploit the system, including buying changes in the system to benefit themselves. I think alternative medicine would be just as bad if they had the same level of resources.