GP Brands alternative medicine "quackery"

chanste

http://medicalindependent.ie/24707/gp_brands_alternative_medicine_%E2%80%9Cquackery%E2%80%9D

See above. I'm inclined to agree with him. So a lot of doctors are quite passive about the whole alternative medicine thing, and there is an understandable argument that we should not be dismissive of patients beliefs. But should doctors be doing more to debunk homeopathy and other such things which are rising in popularity? I mean if someone takes a "remedy" for something which you are dealing with as their doctor. It might be a harmless remedy but if they get it into their heads that there asthma was "cured" by their alternative therapist, they might decide their relief wasn't the inhaler you'd given them and tell their friends that alternative therapists are the real experts. I'm particularly concerned when parents bring their children to alternative therapists first.

Agnieszka_88

If you openly criticise such methods, you will be quickly branded as a close-minded gold digger.

Honestly, people learn quickly what really works. My mother insisted on treating me with homeopathy and some weird herbs when I was little, it ended with a prolonged stay in a hospital and a series of antibiotics injections. You can't refuse them the inhaler, you shouldn't, and you can't force them to learn, you can only educate. The important step would be for the government to cease funding for the so-called "complimentary medicine", but they probably don't want the resulting headache from the outcry about pharma lobbies and so forth.

Here in Germany it's even worse than in Ireland, everywhere is full of bio-mummies with their weird organic diets, no vaccinations policies (a friend of mine couldn't find a doctor who would give her baby the whole set) and "natural treatments".

Anthony16

I think there is a place for alternative medicine when it comes to diet.Most medical doctors do not view diet as an option in treating diseases and simply go straight for the prescription pad and prescribe medicines which could potentially have dangerous side effects. In fairness,they are just carrying out what they are thought in med school. To give you an example of this,i know a lady who suffered from extremely severe rosacea.Burning,flushing ,redness her life was a misery.She was referred to some of the best dermatologists in ireland ,had loads of blood tests and was prescribed everything under the sun.Nothing worked and all the derms told her she would just have to live with it.Anyway,she went to an alternative practitioner who suggested she quit dairy and gluten and within a couple of months she was rosacea free.

chanste

Anthony16 wrote: »

I think there is a place for alternative medicine when it comes to diet.Most medical doctors do not view diet as an option in treating diseases and simply go straight for the prescription pad and prescribe medicines which could potentially have dangerous side effects. In fairness,they are just carrying out what they are thought in med school. To give you an example of this,i know a lady who suffered from extremely severe rosacea.Burning,flushing ,redness her life was a misery.She was referred to some of the best dermatologists in ireland ,had loads of blood tests and was prescribed everything under the sun.Nothing worked and all the derms told her she would just have to live with it.Anyway,she went to an alternative practitioner who suggested she quit dairy and gluten and within a couple of months she was rosacea free.

Not all doctors go straight for the prescription pads. I know there are dermatologists which would try other evidence based approaches too. For instance there is evidence that the use of emollients in rosacea, or the avoidance of exposure to other irritants can be quite effective. But these milder approaches have an actual evidence base. While I don't mean to come across as hostile or accuse you of lying, I do feel that the above sort of anecdotal evidence is part of the problem. Every alternative therapy seems to get by on this pseudo-evidence based approach... My Granny had cancer cured by special prayer stones etc.

Coincidences will happen when enough people are involved and there is a distinct possibility that if enough people are trying alternative therapies that their symptoms will just go away at the same time. This is why actual evidence based medicine requires statistically significant numbers and data which is open to scrutiny. The anecdotal stories such as the one you have used will never be subjected to scrutiny before it manages to convince somebody of the power of going gluten free, which is a step which should really only be taken in consultation with your GP.

Again, apologies if that sounds hostile, I'm trying to balance my views with not offending people who have in my opinion been misled about this stuff.

echo beach

chanste wrote: »

Not all doctors go straight for the prescription pads.

True, but most are under significant time pressures and will admit they can't spend as much time with each patient as they would like to.
One thing that makes 'alternative' practitioners so popular is that they spend 30-60 minutes with a client. The person has time to tell them everything, including details they may not have mentioned to the doctor and they feel listened to and have their concerns acknowledged. There is also careful management of expectations. Clients are often told theirs is a particularly difficult case and may take a long time to deal with, thus increasing the time for it to get better by itself, while patients often come out of the doctors expecting a quick fix and are disappointed if results aren't instant.

Unfortunately for scientists the anecdote is always more convincing than faceless statistics. A treatment may only work in 1% of cases but if that 1% is my Granny and I don't know the other 99% then I'll believe it is a wonderful cure.

Anthony16

I agree with you that alternative medicine should be evidence based.In the situation i described,when the woman ate dairy again her symptoms flared up.It is no coincidence..Thing is,ow are you ever going to get a large group of people to follow an exteremely strict diet like one that is gluten/dairy/nuts/sugar/caffeine fre to see if there are benefits to skin dieases,heart disease,arthritis,cancer etc? Its just too difficult and very few would stick to it.Plus there is no money to be made for the drug companies by carrying ou these studies so they wont ever happen.Also,as far as i know there have been no studies in humans proving omega3 is beneficial for arthritis.It would be vry difficult to gauge this as one would need the same people to follow prety much exactly the same diet for months. Because dogs can be givn a limited amount of foo omega3 has been clinically proven to be vry effctive in helping arthritis in them,even more so than NSAIDs

chanste wrote: »

Not all doctors go straight for the prescription pads. I know there are dermatologists which would try other evidence based approaches too. For instance there is evidence that the use of emollients in rosacea, or the avoidance of exposure to other irritants can be quite effective. But these milder approaches have an actual evidence base. While I don't mean to come across as hostile or accuse you of lying, I do feel that the above sort of anecdotal evidence is part of the problem. Every alternative therapy seems to get by on this pseudo-evidence based approach... My Granny had cancer cured by special prayer stones etc.

Coincidences will happen when enough people are involved and there is a distinct possibility that if enough people are trying alternative therapies that their symptoms will just go away at the same time. This is why actual evidence based medicine requires statistically significant numbers and data which is open to scrutiny. The anecdotal stories such as the one you have used will never be subjected to scrutiny before it manages to convince somebody of the power of going gluten free, which is a step which should really only be taken in consultation with your GP.

Again, apologies if that sounds hostile, I'm trying to balance my views with not offending people who have in my opinion been misled about this stuff.

chanste

Anthony16 wrote: »

I agree with you that alternative medicine should be evidence based.In the situation i described,when the woman ate dairy again her symptoms flared up.It is no coincidence..

But is that not exactly what a coincidence is?

Anthony16 wrote: »

Thing is,ow are you ever going to get a large group of people to follow an exteremely strict diet like one that is gluten/dairy/nuts/sugar/caffeine fre to see if there are benefits to skin dieases,heart disease,arthritis,cancer etc? Its just too difficult and very few would stick to it.

But that's what evidence based medicine is all about. If you take a large enough group of people (Many trials have >10,000 participants before evidence is accepted) and split this group into groups which are equal, comparisons can be made between therapies. There are people who specialise in trial design and they are incredibly clever people who can assist doctors in research. Even if many people don't stick to the "diet therapy", if there is something to be found in favour of it, others in the group will show this group averages a more favourable outcome.

Some people point out that not every company can afford to take these kinds of trials. Fair enough, but nothing has been stopping homeopathy remedies charging prices which compare closer to their pharmaceutical counterparts than to the water it actually is (Even if the "active ingredient" was the most expensive compound in existence, it is in such small quantities its cost is negligible). Why is volvic €1.50 when tiny bottles of these remedies cost closer to €10?

Anthony16 wrote: »

Plus there is no money to be made for the drug companies by carrying ou these studies so they wont ever happen.

Drug companies are not the only people who fund studies. Many people who post here, myself included have conducted evidence based research in varying fields of interest. Research I was involved in was conducted at no cost. The data was there and I worked for free on the basis that it would be useful for my career. Many people will be willing to do the same. Then you also have funding which comes from non-profit organisations, charities, and governments too. It is very cynical to assume that research won't get done if there is no money in it. By all means it may get done slower, but if it is likely to produce an interesting finding, an idea will not be short of volunteers.

Anthony16 wrote: »

Also,as far as i know there have been no studies in humans proving omega3 is beneficial for arthritis.It would be vry difficult to gauge this as one would need the same people to follow prety much exactly the same diet for months. Because dogs can be givn a limited amount of foo omega3 has been clinically proven to be vry effctive in helping arthritis in them,even more so than NSAIDs

I'm not read up on the specifics of omega 3, but I can't see how this is different from any other trial. If it's a time frame thing some trials go on for decades.