Alternative Therapies.

Syth

We've all heard of some sort of alternative theapies. What I'm just wondring is, which have evidence behind them? Which are fakes? Which work? Which are inconclusive?

Sarky

The book "The Science Of Discworld 2" spent a fair bit explaining how an awful lot of alternative therapy has gotten it dead wrong.

Don't know about evidence for them, though. Although a few of them certainly stem from practices that were going on for centuries (like Chinese medicine), and one could argue that time has proven them...Couldn't you?

Syth

They might have survived the test of time so to speak, but if i was sick, i'd rather have a medicine that had been scientifically proven to work. Also, nowadays, there are strict laws on labeling so they have to have some kind of evidence behind them.

Capt'n Midnight

Unfortunately the placebo effect is well documented, and may well be a factor,

also a lot of herbal remedies are dangerous in large amounts - one reason plants produce toxins is to stop animals eating them..

Note this does not mean "science medicine" is safe - Asprin (as in willow bark) is so dangerous that if it was discovered tomorrow you'd need a perscription to get it. Then again I try not to take paracetamol 'cos of the possibility of liver damage.. Many people are allergic to penecillin.

Medical trials have to be very carefully done to rule it out (eg: double blind tests - where neither the patient nor the doctor know who is getting the placebo or the real dose.)

Unlike a lot of other alternatives Chinese medicine has a long recorded history esp. when compared to grandma's cures.. Anyone know of any stats done on it ? (Though since it uses Bear gall bladders and other endangered species)

DriftingRain

I think you must always decide for yourself...Old wives tales on home fixes...
I have a friend that needs a disc in his back replaced. He is currently trying acupuncture. It is working for now...to keep him from having it fixed under the knife...:rolleyes: Who really knows the real Alternative Therapies that work until you try them for yourself.

Syth

I think you must always decide for yourself

I know that everyone is different, and some people will respond better to the same drug. But therer are some situations where you don't want to have to try every drug/therapy untill you find one that works. There should be some backing/evidence behind what you use.

Although some drugs have 'stood the test of time' that doesn't mean that you can't test them, find some proof. Has anyone done that?

davros

Originally posted by Syth
Although some drugs have 'stood the test of time' that doesn't mean that you can't test them, find some proof. Has anyone done that?

From time-to-time, a university will announce that it is starting a research programme to finally separate fact from fiction in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). I never hear the results of these investigations though.

I personally feel there are some useful ideas buried within TCM but they are few and far between and only serious research will ferret them out.

My one personal experience of TCM was not too encouraging. I visited a medicine shop in some small town in China. The doc scooted around picking dried bits of this and that from various drawers, all the while puffing away on a fag. He placed the pestle and mortar on the filthy floor (just a cement floor) and any time a piece hopped out, he just picked it up and put it back in.

Thousands of years of practice didn't figure out basic hygiene, in that case :-) I'm sure that's not standard though!

By the way, Syth, there will be a public lecture next week on alternative medicine that you might find useful in evaluating their medical claims. It's from a sceptical viewpoint, I should say, and there is an entrance fee to cover costs (concessions for students). Details here.

GuanYin

Originally posted by davros
Thousands of years of practice didn't figure out basic hygiene, in that case :-) I'm sure that's not standard though!

Strangely, there is a school of thought that believes if you expose a person to more infections, they will tend to be a healthier individual in the long run due to a more balanced immune system.

I'd be interested in seeing if gut parasite infections would "cure" allergy related conditions...

DriftingRain

I'd be interested in seeing if gut parasite infections would "cure" allergy related conditions...

I actually believe that parasites increase the bodies Eosinophils and Monosites. These both fight off allergies, so in my opinion YES....But I'll not be running out to get a parasite implant anytimes soon!:rolleyes:

Capt'n Midnight

Nietzsche "that which does no kill me makes me stronger"

Yeah you hear a lot about kids who have been over protected having a higher incidence of asthma. Exposure to a wide variety of stuff early on is recommended. But in the same way that exposure to cow pox protects from small pox, you should try to limit the exposure to less pathogneic / pyrogenic agents. Also I'm not sure if the immune system slows down and settles later - eg; there is less benefit in having a adult exposed since less possible variations of immunities.

I could be wrong on this but doesn't immunity work on a mix and match basis - you develop recognition of certain bio-molocules and then there is random shuffling so that similar molocules will be recognised later on.


Radio4 did a very interesting program on RNA a while back. The idea being that if you have one copy of a gene in a cell then there will only be one piece of RNA copied from the gene at any one time - so it will be single stranded. If you have a viral infection then there will be many copies of RNA (because many copies of the DNA being transcribed at one time) and some will become double stranded - this triggers a response in the cell. So you could have gene therapy that introcudes a second copy of the gene you want to protect against in to the cell - immunisation inside a cell so to speak.

*the reception was bad and I missed most of the program - it might not have been mRNA as the fragments seemed too small.

GuanYin

There's been a few posts on Alternative therapies in the science forum of late, that have seemingly moved across to Irish Skeptics.

I didn't really have much input into these at the time, because, although I view these threads as worse than giving medical advice (which is in a way what they are also doing) I didn't really know what line to take on it.

After reading a couple of good articles at the weekend in The Scientist and Scientific American (and the references they alluded to) I had a chat with a few friends of mine about the subject and decided I'd post when I came back.

Basically they can be summed up as this:

1. Advising Alternative Medicines is "Giving Medical Advice" which is an A1 offence in science.

2. While medications have undergone rigourous testing to get approval for human use, including examination of interactions with other drugs, method of break down and effect on metabolism, alternative meds have not. Allowing advice on alternative medicines could lead a person to take something that directly interfered or interacted with pre-existing medication.

I think discussion about the merits of alternative medicines etc is fine, but anyone posting advice about taking a treatment as a remedy will not be tolerated.