to wonder why dr's are so dismissive of "alternative" therapies?

[tialys]

For example - ds1 was a very difficult baby - he either cried or fed. He saw a cranial osteopath (as a last resort) when he was 5/6 months old. Within 2 days, he was a different baby. Dr's completely dismissed it as coincidence, as CO is completely untested and unresearched.
So 5 years down the line, it must have been another coincidence when ds2 underwent a similar miracle cure?

Another example - I've spent the last few months with terrible asthma - hospitalised 3 times, nothing the dr's did made any difference at all.
I've started having accupuncture (again as a last resort) and within 2 weeks, my asthma is better than it has been for years. Saw my dr, who said "ah good - looks like your steroid inhaler is finally doing its job" (I started it months before the astham attacks started ) and warned me away from charlatans like acupuncturists.

Why can't they accept that sometimes, alternative therapies can be more effective than giving more and more drugs to their patients?

I've just watched seveal Ben Goldacre vids (I have read Bad Science but never really seen him) and I love him. He's brilliant. Yay.

I have used acupuncture and reflexology, both in desperation. Neither did what it was supposed to, (get overdue baby out!) but then, with DC1 conventional medicine didn't do too well either. Reflexology is a nice foot massage, very relaxing. Maybe it didn't work because I didn't believe it?

No, my mum's not snobby at all. She can nail a character at fifty paces.

He doesn't look at evidence he doesn't like: it must be in a peer reviewed journal. For example: evidence from many, many parents about vaccine damage is ignored, usual with the rather perjorative term "anecdotal".

However there's a great pro-pharmaceutical prejudice in journals, which BA himself acknowledges, I believe, from what I've read of his material.

He's basically convinced of his own self-righteousness and unable to take his fingers out of his ears.

Not all drs are dismissive of 'alternative therapies'. It depends on the individual therapy and the individual dr. There are some alternative therapies that have absolutely no scientific basis whatsoever and any effect is purely a placebo one.
There are others, acupuncture, for example where there is a significant amount of literature available that supports its use for a range of conditions (eg OA, headaches, infertility) Also, it has been used for centuries in China, is used during surgery instead of GA, etc.
Generally, if something is making the patient feel better, they can afford it and it does no harm, I wouldn't worry too much.

vvvodka re chemical memory, I believe you may be thinking of quantum entanglement and attempts by homeopathic believers to make it sound more scientific. Its bunkum and makes absolutely no sense.

At the "strength" most recommended for homeopathic preperations, on average, this would require giving two billion doses per second to six billion people for 4 billion years to deliver a single molecule of the original material to any patient.

Neither "chemical memory" or quantum entanglement can explain how it is possible that there is anything but water and sugar in that "remedy"

For homeopathy to make any sense, we would have to throw out the basic principles of chemistry, physics and pharmacology, the laws of nature and all of our commonsense.
Homeopathy is the nadir of woo.

I can't believe that no one has not linked this

And I've tried cranial oseopathy for DS1... absolutely no effect whatsoever.

sorry

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0

But if evidence is not replicable and peer -reviewed it isn't evidence - it's anecdote. And sad though it is, all the "evidence" that children have been vaccine damaged is anecdote, not evidence. And it doesn't matter how many anecdotes there are, they are still not evidence.

doctors aren't all dismissive of alternative remedies. Some are quite into it.

But they are science-driven so I wouldn't expect many of them to be strongly in favour.

Once there is evidence that a therapy works beyond the placebo effect it ceases to be alternative. Simple, really.

My GP offered me accupuncture (by him) for a muscle problem. I was the one that was dismissive but desperate as in so much pain so agreed. It was so satisying to have the bl**dy thing given a taste of it's own medicine by being jabbed with a really long needle and it did actually work too.

My GP is a really straight forward kind of a person, often offends people by telling them things straight, yet is convinced accupuncture (and other alternatives) work.

"But they are science-driven so I wouldn't expect many of them to be strongly in favour."

Good! I want my doctor to be science driven! If I want to consult a White Witch I will, but I want my doctor to stick to evidence based, peer-reviewed, replicable science!

I just want peer reviewed, replicable science to take a little more notice of treatments which don't have multimillion funding from big pharma...

Carmen - do you honestly believe that the snake oil vendors are not in it for the money? Homeopathic pills still have to be made, packaged, marketed and sold at a profit.

Like what, Carmen?

Are you trying to say that alternative medicine is not big business? And that if there was proper proof that homeopathy worked better than a sugar pill and a sympathetic ear that Nelson's wouldn't be shouting it from the rooftops? Or Holland and Barrett?

Haven't read whole thread, so someone may already have said this - but if proper clinical trials show that something works, then it's just 'medicine', nothing 'alternative' about it. And if there's no evidence that it works, then it ain't medicine, 'alternative' or otherwise.

BG didn't look trounced to me - strange how two people can see the same interview in completely opposite ways! Just goes to show - anecdote is very unreliable. Peer review and replicable is the only way to go!

Ha ha! Just watched it. Aric Sigman remains calm, composed and articulate. He makes BG look like an embarrassing hyped-up teenager. He knows he's beat too.

Very funny. Thanks for that.

WidowWadman, I'm sure many of them are, yes. I think the people behind Bach's remedies are shysters of the first order. I'm not going to argue on homeopathy because I don't really believe there is significant evidence to.

But this is why it would be really good to see more investment in areas where the evidence indicates that certain treatments are beneficial. It would legitimise those 'alternative' treatments that are significant and give the snake oil merchants less of a hold. By rendering the entire industry illegitimate, it puts them all on an equal footing which just isn't fair.

Herbal medicine for one is very significant. Prostilian, a new HIV drug has been sourced from the Samoan rainforest. Digitalis (foxglove) has been the basis of several groundbreaking cardiac medications. Pharma are sending out big teams to many rainforest areas and offering cuts to indigenous people in return for many obscure traditional herbs.

Sadly though, the average population don't even understand the difference between herbs and homeopathic remedies or the difference in credibility between them.

The average investment in development for a new drug is now estimated at $1.7 billion. Holland & Barrett, Nelsons etc. don't have anywhere near a fraction of that amount to spend on R&D. And pharma are never going to invest in St John's Wort or kohosh or whatever, not because they're necessarily ineffective, but because they weren't there first so there aren't the returns.

Carmen I was just about to point out the difference between herbal medicine and homeopathy. Most effective medicine started out as herbal medicine, we've just scrubbed it up a big and put a posh frock on it. Every doctor and pharmacist I know understands this but to be honest its a bit easier to control the amount of pain relief you get by prescribing some aspirin than telling your patients to go and chew some willow bark.

Compare the length of time of an alternative therapists appointment with your average NHS GP's and you'll find the real reason why people think alternative therapies work more than they really do. In my very humble opinion. And I have a very lovely friend who is a homeopath which sadly I think is hokum, she is however excellent at recommending the best way to get iron into your diet.

Has anyone gor any more examples of Ben Goldacre being an arse?

Has anyone mentioned yet that thalidomide is now approved as an effective drug in the treatment of Myeloma (a form of cancer) so please don't be so dismissive of it. I like the thought that my (thalidomide affected) friend who sadly died in her 30's contributed in a bizarre way to healing others.

It certainly is evidence, seeker, it's just not proof. Why on earth isn't it considered maverick to be interested in "reports"? Heaven, every vaccine researcher in the world should be interested. Why dismiss them out of hand? Lack of confidence, maybe?

There is no good reason for it. If you think so, you haven't read them, or know enough about it.

If you don't "believe" in alternative remedies, you probably think yourself rather cynical and sensible. It's ironic that those same people will lap gratefully from the marketing sup bowl of pharmaceuticals without question.