Quack medicine- "wellness" almost killed a child- and yet regulations are still "voluntary"

[plumandolive]

Alternative medicines are to be "regulated"- but the regulation is "voluntary"
What on earth is the point of that?

voluntary regulation

And what on earth has blooming Prince Charles got to do with it?

"wellness" almost kills 11 yr old

Well that's not exactly highly regulated is it? I think that anything that claims to improve your life should be very clear about how and why, and that those explanations should be backed up by evidence. But I am a cynic I am afraid. I don't generally believe in the unexplainable.

There is a great deal of evidence to show that vitamin supplements have benefits! Just because none of it is oddly replicable when the poor old drug-funded researchers have a go might have something more to do with the design of the studies than the facts of the matter.

Not cynical enough my friend

Makes me sigh when people think they're cynics because they suspect some alternative practitioners may not be right about their lay lines.

But the rest of the crap is bought hook line and sinker.

Thousands and thousands of people are killed every year by conventional doctors and drugs. All jolly nicely regulated though, so does it not matter?

The thing that irks me about alternative health is this: if it works it should therefore be regulated to prevent charlatans. WHY wouldn't anyone want it to go unregulated?

I have wasted lots of money in the past on pointless 'cures'. Pisses me right off.

*ing ley lines

sorry for your losses nicky but at least you're still alive

I wouldn't be alive were it not for conventional medicine though. Though alternative medicines never harmed me, they did slow my acceptance of medicines which actually worked!

Actually, I think a lot of complementary health stuff is great, but it should BE complementary and not an slternative.

Nicky .. can you explain more? Are you willing to?

Yes, certainly.

When I was severly anorexic, I thought it better to eschew ADs and a place in a very good recovery centre and try homeopathic and other rememdies from a supposedly reputable practitioner. Now, as you an I know she should have said, yes of course i will treat you, but this is a life threatening illness and you need hospitalisation, etc. I will treat you aswell to help support you, blah, blah, but np, she didn't. SHe said she could cure me.
2 months later I got worse, collapsed, ended up in hospital with a tube up my nose nearly dead.
Luckily I got good help from the centre (who were very keen on and used aromatherapy and cetrtain herbal, etc complementary therapies as well as psychotherapy, etc).

I realise that it is not as clear an issue with a mental health problem, but I had an old friend who died from cancer far sooner and in far more pain than necassary becasue he believed someone's bullshit about a diet cure. He died in agony. He isn't the only person to have been given false hope.

I totally agree that the conventional health system is riddled with flaws and is responsible for the accidental death of many, many people, but it saves lives on a daily basis.

Thanks for explaining something so personal.

Yeah, that's pretty bad and I'm glad you're ok.

To give the other side, I also knew a man with cancer who was given about three months to live. He came out of hospital, went home, had no radiotherapy or chemotherapy treatment and went on to live over two years, suffering acute problems only because of infections caused by a botched initial surgery.

I also think the bald facts as related by the statistics are very telling.

I suppose it goes to show that our bodies of belief are made up not only of what we read and study but of our personal experiences.

There is plenty of charitable and government funded research too, it's not drug companies or nothing. The trouble is that lots of research is really very badly done, and then shows nothing useful at all. I have a Masters in Public Health, and one of the key skills is something called critical appraisal. It's about interpreting research findings and methodologies, and checking that the findings given are borne out by what the statistics actually say. Sadly it often isn't. The smaller the study the less likely it is to show anything useful or repeatable because you need to show very big changes for statistical significance, and in general few treatments show big changes. There are also lots of issues with how you pick your participants, confounding factors, ensuring that you don't introduce bias etc.

Anyway, if you'd like more of a view as to some of the problems with trials and some interesting stuff on complimentary therapies, I recommend Bandolier www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/booths/altmed.html. It's run by academics, so fairly neutral, although of course there is editorial bias. What it does have is a real interest in the subject, and as it has al the references, links to lots of other sources.