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?

That "you" should" be a more general "one".

Hi, I've only read the first page of this, and don't know if anyone else has mentioned it already, but I reccommend listening to this beat poem by comedian Tim Minchin. It covers alternative medicine, science, and the supernatural from the skeptic point of view brilliantly. Storm

I would like those alternative therapies which clearly do contain biologically active ingredients to be properly tested and regulated so that standards of manufacture were assured and the product was safe. That would be a good start.
Aristolochia in chinese herbs (a contaminant) is a good example - causes rapid and irreversible renal failure followed by the onset of multiple transitional cell carcinomata.
Until such regulation is in place I would suggest patients avoided any potentially harmful treatments, regardless of the possible efficacy.
I would love someone to prescribe me aromatherapy, though.

I remember trying to return some Dead Sea lotion of some sort (which I really hadn't wanted to buy in the first place, but had had a very good salesman). Part of the reason being that the test application had given me very irritated skin. The salesman said it couldn't possibly have had that effect because it was "all natural". I think this is one of the fallacies that people often adopt, the idea that natural things can't be bad (forgetting arsenic, digitalis etc). Some Chinese medicine herbs have also been found to have very high levels of pollutants, so quality control would clearly be a good thing.

I have more truck with those disciplines that have proper professional associations with qualifications and where practitioners have to have significant training and regular assessments of competency. A nursing friend of mine trained to be an acupuncturist, and it was certainly quite intense. On the other hand there are a whole bunch of "therapies" where anyone can set themselves up. Even if the evidence suggested that what they had to offer was effective, there would be no way to know whether that practitioner knew what they were doing at all.

The best rationale I've seen for some of the value of complimentary therapies is that they tend to be more holistic (something a good GP should also offer) so people feel listened to. We know that many illnesses have both physical and psychological impact and causes, so treating the whole person is obviously important. The trouble with many therapies is that you cannot blind the practitioner, so getting reliable tests is very difficult. There have been attempts, but the studies have had their flaws, and the results are variable.

upandrunning "It's ironic that those same people will lap gratefully from the marketing sup bowl of pharmaceuticals without question."

I don't think that's true at all. Certainly not in my specific case - I go out of my way to avoid buying branded medicines (e.g. B.P paracetamol suspension instead of the heavily and cynically marketed calpol.)

General rule of thumb - people making money out of you are not that likely to tell you the truth, unless is co-incides with their product.

I know there are GPs who will positively encourage their patients to look into complementary therapies - the ones who have very little wrong with them but are demanding and take up a huge amount of GP time which could be better used (no, DH has not been ranting again, not at all ).

My dh used to do acupuncture for joint problems - hasn't done it for a while, cos the physios do it so he can refer, and once again, save him some time - cos that is his most precious resource.

I actually think that the biggest thing that complementary/alternative practitioners give those who consult them is time. A whole 30 minutes of someone massaging your feet. An hour of chatting about your entire life and medical history before you are "prescribed" some sugar pills homeopathic remedy. 45 mins of aromatherapy massage. Vs a rushed 10 minutes with a GP who is running 2 hours late cos of the emergency call out he had to see first thing and who is once again not going to get home until 9pm and not see his children again ..... etc etc. The attention in itself is going to make you feel so much better!

Interestingly, Goldacre mentions in his book about how the press have aided the move from looking at the science of things to deciding the worthiness of whoever is speaking.

This thread is a good example of that, it's been decided that Goldacre himself is objectionable/some of the things he says is objectionable, therefore to some people that invalidates everything he says. Just as someone may be seen as a "champion of the people" and therefore whatever they say is right and if someone disagrees it becomes oppressor v. victim and the facts fall by the wayside.

Just like the myth that alternative medicine is the small and ignored champion of the people fighting valiantly against big drug companies that must be inherently evil. It's a massively profitable business that earns billions and some big drug companies are in on it.

"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."

I'm afraid I don"t understand this post. What reports do you mean? And I'm sure you don't mean, as you imply, that if one doesn't agree with you, one doesn't know enough about the subject!

I question your last sentence. I apply the samce sceptical, critical eye to the claims of the big pharmaceutical companies that I apply to anyone who seeks to sell me something, whether it be St John's Wort,Rescue Remedy, ibuprophen, a pendulum or a chakra crystal.

I've been thinking about this, and it occurs to me that among my RL friends and acquaintances, the only people who think Ben Goldacre is a arse ALSO firmly believe that there is a link between MMR and autism and/or Crohn's disease and other bowel problems. I wonder if the same applies on here.

Some GPs like alternative therapies because they can send the worried well to them, thus stopping them blocking their waiting rooms.

Good point CommonNortherner. He was also mentioning this on that clip we were watching, which I found very interesting. I still can't see why some people are saying why the clip shows Goldacre getting "trounced" or why he is "odious".

What I saw was Goldacre pointing out to Sigman that Sigman's paper had totally ignored all the evidence pointing in the opposite direction and so couldn't be taken seriously as being an accurate reflection of the true position. Then Sigman looks slightly embarrassed and smoothly covers it up by saying something like "Oh, well, my paper was just supposed to be stating one side of the story".

Well, what's the use of it then if it is just a statement of what he wants to be true and hasn't even addressed anything that might inconveniently disprove his theory?

And people then state that they thought Goldacre got "trounced" because Sigman is quietly spoken and is an older man with smooth hair and a suit, whereas Goldman is a young guy with fluffy hair and a passionate manner!

Seeker I don't "firmly believe that there is a link between MMR and autism and/or Crohn's disease and other bowel problems" and yet I still think Ben Godacre is an arse.

Sorry not to be able to fit into your stereotype.

Nope, watched it twice and still saw BG present an argument which AS completely failed to answer and in fact simply slid around. But then maybe I was influenced by his slick appearance and American accent Nope...Just listened to it this time without the video and BG still comes across as having the more compelling approach.

I was just wondering whether the pattern I've seen in my rl was replicated on here, Dilith - I wasn't drawing any conclusions from my own observations - no stereotyping involved!

So, why do you think Ben Goldacre's an arse?

seeker, exactly. I want doctors to be science driven too.

I think the placebo effect needs to be looked into more deeply. After reading Goldacre's book I basically realised that the hypnobirthing techniques I use for labour (and which work, pain free labour for me!), are pretty much an extension of the placebo effect.

Your mind can have great control over your body, would be interesting to find out more about how it works.

I've just watched teh Goldacre/Sigman discussion and I don't think Goldacre was 'trounced' or was 'ridiculous' at all. I don't make these judgements based on frizziness of hair or on colour of tank top (yeah, tank top not a great look here).

I am increasingly frustrated these days with policy based on opinion and conjecture (which was Goldacre's main argument) and a refusal to look at empirical research. This is rife in education.

Sigman just seems to state his own point of view using some fairly convincing scientific language.

If there are any doctors who are NOT science driven I want them struck off now.

Some other countries still have witch doctors. That's where not being science driven gets you.

hypnotherapy works for some people, but not others. it's not a science, there are no guarantees. I personally think anything is worth a shot when you want answers - why shouldn't you try anything??

there is a clinic in America where patients are hypnotised before undergoing procedures/operations with a smaller percentage of GA than the average. it works. can't remember the name of it but will find out and report back....

There has been research on the Placebo effect. They did knee operations on people who complained of knee pain. On some all they did was cut open the knee and sew it back up again and most of those people found an improvement in their knee. There has also been experiments done with sugar pills vs anti depressents, again a high percentage on the sugar pills reported a big improvement.

I think it was also found the longer a doctor/surgeon spent talking to the patient the greater the placebo effect.

I'm sure it's the Mayo Clinic.

I know bruffin I read Bad Science as well (and would have loved it for the McKeith chapter alone).

But I think there should be more and looked into more deeply. It is fairly amazing when you think about it. Didn't he point out that sometimes with the placebo effect people didn't just feel better they got better?

Placebo research has shown that red pills are more effective then blue pills.

So 'The Matrix' got that right!

The Matrix made me fear deja vu!