Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

What is Alternative Medicine?

2

Comments

  • #32
    Vorsprung
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,820 ✭✭✭Vorsprung


    nesf wrote: »
    Actually you'll find it's all part of Big Pharma's conspiracy and these people secretly apply drugs and/or radiation to people while pretending to offer non-drug/radiation treatment..

    People working in these professionals also tend to be pretty tasty, resulting in less time looking up doses and more time looking at other figures, thus rendering my work, and that of my male medical colleagues, less complete. Bastards.
    N8 wrote:
    and as therapists are complimentary to the medical profession

    They are referred to as Allied Health Professionals. They have journals (peer reviewed) in which papers are published, leading to evidence based treatment. They also have a number of (proven and useful) roles in treatment. 2 examples for you:

    - Take a person whose had a stroke. Any medical management that's prescribed is aimed at preventing a second stroke. The treatment effectively is physio, OT and SALT.

    - Vertigo (random example) - Treatment is Epley manoeuvre - performed by physios.


  • #33
    ORLY?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭ORLY?


    N8 wrote: »
    None are considered alternative therapies but they are complimentary to medical practice - are they not?

    NO. They are an integral part of medical practice


  • #34
    N8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭N8


    Vorsprung wrote: »
    They are referred to as Allied Health Professionals. They have journals (peer reviewed) in which papers are published, leading to evidence based treatment. They also have a number of (proven and useful) roles in treatment.

    Far point - allied rather than complementary - fine line I suppose but one that defines them closer to and within medical confidences I presume.

    Treatment proven and evidence based? Is it 100%?


    ORLY? wrote: »
    NO. They are an integral part of medical practice

    "Allied health professions are clinical and administrative health care professions distinct from medicine, dentistry, and nursing."

    No they work with medical practitioners but are seperate from. And as per my post above I am accepting this point but I find 'complementary' and 'allied' a fine line, but one that sets them clearly within a medical paradigm.



    King Mob wrote: »
    Again, how do you know this is the case?
    Are you challenging the idea that the treatments listed are valid and used?

    How do you know they are not? Perhaps you would liketo back up your claim first?

    No I am not challenging those ideas at all. One chap I spoke with at christmas has successfully lost almost five stone and given up a 40 a day habit but he is one of a very very select lot that are willing to listen and would rather medicate themselves and make their deterioration comfortable.

    King Mob wrote: »
    No because they are medical practices.

    NO they are not they are side by side therapists either known as complementary staff or preferred it appears as allied health professionals.

    "Allied health professions are clinical and administrative health care professions distinct from medicine, dentistry, and nursing."


    King Mob wrote: »
    But it's often easier to accuse people of cynicism or trying to silence you than to back up claims...

    No not quite cynicism is easily recognisable. Cynics blindly accept any information that confirms their lack of faith in something (here alternative health care thinking). Skeptics question everything, even the the main stream view (here main stream medicine).

    You are a cynic skepdick not a skeptic in any true sense of the word or character.


  • #35
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    N8 wrote: »
    How do you know they are not?
    FFS. Is this seriously your evidence?
    Can you back up your claim on not.
    N8 wrote: »
    Perhaps you would liketo back up your claim first?
    So the various health care people here on the boards detailing several conditions for which the primary treatment is something other than "drugs surgery and radiation" doesn't count?

    Did you look into these claims before you dismissed them?
    Do you feel no hypocrisy demanding evidence while offering none of yours?

    Here's two examples that Vorsprung mentioned.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epley_maneuver

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke#Treatment

    Maybe the others would like to provide references for the other treatments mentioned, but I wouldn't blame them if they didn't.
    Why bother looking them up when you have no intention of reading them.
    N8 wrote: »
    No I am not challenging those ideas at all.
    Then why ask for references other than to be pedantic?
    Do you argue that they are the primary treatments for some conditions?
    N8 wrote: »
    One chap I spoke with at christmas has successfully lost almost five stone and given up a 40 a day habit but he is one of a very very select lot that are willing to listen and would rather medicate themselves and make their deterioration comfortable.
    What's your point exactly?

    How do you know that he is the rare case exactly?
    Have you any data on this?
    N8 wrote: »
    NO they are not they are side by side therapists either known as complementary staff or preferred it appears as allied health professionals.

    "Allied health professions are clinical and administrative health care professions distinct from medicine, dentistry, and nursing."
    So then no you can't find a single regulatory body that describes itself as a complementary medicine?
    Shocker.

    Now I did look up a regulatory body (with a loose definition of the term regulatory) and found this:
    http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/#definingcam

    No where at all in there do they mention proper physiotherapy or proper nutritional therapy.

    Lots of chiropractic and other quackery though.
    N8 wrote: »
    No not quite cynicism is easily recognisable. Cynics blindly accept any information that confirms their lack of faith in something (here alternative health care thinking). Skeptics question everything, even the the main stream view (here main stream medicine).

    You are a cynic skepdick not a skeptic in any true sense of the word or character.
    Are you serious?

    Can you please tell me that since I'm such a "cynic skepdick" why am I asking you for evidence to back up your claims?

    And why when you are such a "True skeptic" you have no problem dodging these requests and other points?

    A skeptic doesn't just question everything ad nausem, we base our positions on the best evidence and reasoning available.
    You are providing neither good evidence for you claims or good reasoning.
    But if you would prefer to accuse me of being close minded because I dare to question you....


  • #36
    lonestargirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭lonestargirl


    N8 wrote: »
    Far point - allied rather than complementary - fine line I suppose but one that defines them closer to and within medical confidences I presume.

    Treatment proven and evidence based? Is it 100%?

    I'm a medical physicist/dosimetrist, this is considered an allied health professional. The use of radiation therapy is 100% evidence based, the doctor may decide what treatment he/she wants buts it's not going to happen without me and my collegues (+ radiation therapists who operate the linacs - another allied health professional). Our involvement is central to the treatment of the patient.


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    lonestargirl wrote: »
    I'm a medical physicist/domsimetrist,

    Adding this to my list of awesome sounding disciplines.
    Up there with archeo-astronomer.


  • #38
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    N8 wrote: »
    F
    NO they are not they are side by side therapists either known as complementary staff or preferred it appears as allied health professionals.

    "Allied health professions are clinical and administrative health care professions distinct from medicine, dentistry, and nursing."

    So, you would see pharmacists as complementary therapists?


  • #39
    lonestargirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭lonestargirl


    What would you think of ECG techs? or respiratory techs? or perfusionists? or radiographers?

    I would consider allied health professionals as those that perform a designated specialist role within the medical care of the patient. The doctor will have a good understanding of the work the allied health professional does but might not be able to fully perform the role themselves (you can't possibly have a enough time to fully train in each of these roles).


  • #40
    ORLY?
    Closed Accounts Posts: 265 ✭✭ORLY?


    N8 wrote: »
    No they work with medical practitioners but are seperate from. And as per my post above I am accepting this point but I find 'complementary' and 'allied' a fine line, but one that sets them clearly within a medical paradigm.

    I didn't say they were the same as people in the medical profession, I said they were an integral part of medical practice. Some one from the medical profession is a doctor, someone from the nursing profession a nurse etc. None is the same as the other but all are integral to the implementation of conventional medical practice.

    Often a doctor's job is to decide on what treatment a person needs and often this involves something like PT or OT that a doctor is not trained in but knows would be helpful. So in that case, the physio or OT is the person that implements the treatment decided upon by the doctor. The process is in no way complementary to conventional medical practice but part of the process, just a part that is not implemented by a medical profession, just like the way many ultrasounds, x-rays, radiotherapy sessions, vaccinations etc. etc. are performed by people who are not members of the medical profession.


  • #41
    N8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭N8


    ORLY? wrote: »
    For example, the primary intervention for non insulin dependent diabetes is a change in diet and increase in exercise. Look in any clinical medicine book and you'll find it there.
    sam34 wrote: »
    or the first intervention for treatment of hypertension is lifestyle changes - diet, exercise, stopping smoking etc
    N8 wrote: »
    whilst I have no doubt of your sincerity and this would be ideal it rarely happens in either recommendation or follow through

    King Mob wrote: »
    Can you please explain how you know this rarely happens?
    Or is it only because they refute you silly point?
    N8 wrote: »
    Because it rarely happens in practice. There is the cursory mention of lifestyle changes / interruptions that accompany the prescription, more often than not due to known patient intransigence based upon prior interaction, rather than any incompetence or ineptitude on that doctor's behalf.

    Hardly silly rather an observation of real life.


    kings mob I never challenged a primary treatment being other than drugs, radiation or surgery. I descibed a day to day challenge for those advising clients of their first choice of care - lifestyle change - meeting those who want a quick fix and medication.

    I think I can now add manic and hysterical to cynical in my description of your postings and opinion.

    lonestargirl wrote: »
    I'm a medical physicist/dosimetrist, this is considered an allied health professional. The use of radiation therapy is 100% evidence based


    I am not an expert in the field by no means lonestargirl but is the use of radiation therapy 100% evidence based? I am not saying it isn't but I understood that quite alot of practice is not.

    A while back David Eddy's in the BMJ stated the evidence base for medical care was somethin like 15% iirc

    bleg wrote: »
    So, you would see pharmacists as complementary therapists?

    not paricularly and as such my position has changed or this as I stated previously but they are not medical professionals, they are professions allied to the medical profession and practicing under the medical paradigm which is where the division I believe is.

    So we have those professionals, therapists and practitioners either working under a medical paradigm, and as Orly describes integral of (unable to exist without) and those working alternate to all this.

    What practice does the description complementary describe?


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    N8 wrote: »
    kings mob I never challenged a primary treatment being other than drugs, radiation or surgery. I descibed a day to day challenge for those advising clients of their first choice of care - lifestyle change - meeting those who want a quick fix and medication.

    I think I can now add manic and hysterical to cynical in my description of your postings and opinion.

    Actually you said:
    N8 wrote: »
    Medicine involves the diagnosis and treatment of disease with the use of drugs, radiation and surgery.

    Complimentary medicine involves those therapies that compliment medicine: massage, nutritional advice, are but to name two.

    It's been shown to you that actual medicine involves massage/physiotherapy and nutritional advice as primary treatments in many conditions.

    Now you're saying that doctors don't use these because patients don't follow through with them.
    Now leaving aside the fact that this is blatantly moving the goalposts, you've not provided a scrap of evidence to suggest that doctors aren't using these treatments.
    N8 wrote: »
    What practice does the description complementary describe?
    http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/#definingcam

    Now any chance you're going to address the rest of my points or does being a "true skeptic" involve ignoring questions you can't answer?


  • #43
    lonestargirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭lonestargirl


    N8 wrote: »
    I am not an expert in the field by no means lonestargirl but is the use of radiation therapy 100% evidence based? I am not saying it isn't but I understood that quite alot of practice is not.

    Yes.


  • #44
    N8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭N8


    King Mob wrote: »
    Actually you said:

    sorry kings mob you are deliberately misquoting me.

    Although it would be fair to say (repeat) I would not describe those professions I described earlier as complementary having been brought round to the fact they are not such - they are allied health professionals.

    King Mob wrote: »
    you've not provided a scrap of evidence to suggest that doctors aren't using these treatments.

    nor have you that they are.

    Dr Galen wrote: »
    A simple question I ask is posed above. What makes something alt or complimentary? Is it a lack of scientific proof? Is it because its not common in the mainstream of medicine that we all mostly work in or around? IS it something else completely?
    N8 wrote: »
    What practice does the description complementary describe?

    King Mob wrote: »
    http://nccam.nih.gov/health/whatiscam/#definingcam


    why didn't you just give your answer backed up by your usual one stop source of research, declared your answer to be fully correct, without any need for further discussion and request that as such, the thread be locked.


    King Mob wrote: »
    Now any chance you're going to address the rest of my points or does being a "true skeptic" involve ignoring questions you can't answer?

    I am afraid in answering you I never described myself as a skeptic true or otherwise I merely made the observation that your position was not one of skepticism but one of cynicism that was deteriorating toward manic hysteria.


    lonestargirl wrote: »
    Yes.

    I don't mean to be rude Lonestar but this quite interests me - do you have a paper or metaanalysis that you can point me in the direction of this please?


  • #45
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 25,874 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    N8 wrote: »
    sorry kings mob you are deliberately misquoting me.
    I fail to see how I can misquote you when I'm reposting your exact words...
    N8 wrote: »
    Although it would be fair to say (repeat) I would not describe those professions I described earlier as complementary having been brought round to the fact they are not such - they are allied health professionals.
    So then you would describe the treatments they provide, as prescribed by doctors as being part of medicine?
    N8 wrote: »
    nor have you that they are.
    I have actually, you've just ignored that post.
    King Mob wrote: »
    Here's two examples that Vorsprung mentioned.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epley_maneuver

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stroke#Treatment

    Maybe the others would like to provide references for the other treatments mentioned, but I wouldn't blame them if they didn't.
    Why bother looking them up when you have no intention of reading them.

    Now are you still standing behind your claim that doctors don't use these treatments?
    Despite the fact that physiotherapists, dietitians (not nutritionists) etc are still in business? And despite the fact that you yourself don't contest that these treatments are the recommended primary treatments?

    You also do realise you've been moving the goal posts quite a bit on this too.
    You started off by saying "treatments such as diet, change of lifestyle and physiotherapy where not considered to be real medicine", to "they are,but doctors never use them."

    So again I have to ask you, how do you know these treatments are not used?
    N8 wrote: »
    why didn't you just give your answer backed up by your usual one stop source of research, declared your answer to be fully correct, without any need for further discussion and request that as such, the thread be locked.
    Again, it's funny that you're whinging about discussion...

    You ever going to get round to those questions and points you're ignoring?
    N8 wrote: »
    I am afraid in answering you I never described myself as a skeptic true or otherwise I merely made the observation that your position was not one of skepticism but one of cynicism that was deteriorating toward manic hysteria.
    Ah ok, so dispute me asking you to back up your claims so as to change my mind about this issue as well as the fact that you aren't even reading what ever reasoning or evidence you are presented with, I'm a cynic...?

    Somehow I don't think you're using the right definitions here....


  • #46
    lonestargirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭lonestargirl


    N8 wrote: »
    I don't mean to be rude Lonestar but this quite interests me - do you have a paper or metaanalysis that you can point me in the direction of this please?

    It's a whole treatment area, the evidence is specific to a given disease site/histology. This a really useful book that summarises all the major evidence with a chapter per site: Handbook of Evidence Based Radiation Oncology, you can flick through the first few pages on Amazon. If you have a question about a particular use of radiotherapy I'd be happy to answer it.


  • #47
    N8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭N8


    lonestargirl wrote: »
    It's a whole treatment area, the evidence is specific to a given disease site/histology. This a really useful book that summarises all the major evidence with a chapter per site: Handbook of Evidence Based Radiation Oncology, you can flick through the first few pages on Amazon. If you have a question about a particular use of radiotherapy I'd be happy to answer it.

    Thanks - appreciated.


  • #48
    locum-motion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,144 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    Guys (specifically, N8 & KingMob),
    You're dragging this thread off topic; the topic is "What is Alternative Medicine?" not "Are allied health professionals part of medicine or not?" What you're both arguing is essentially semantics, IMO.
    For the purposes of this thread, I propose that we stipulate the following:
    Medical doctors don't practice alternative medicine.*
    Pharmacy, Dietetics, Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Medical Physics etc are not alternative medicine, nor complementary medicine, but are professions that are allied to the medical profession and are a part of medical treatment.

    The core question of the thread is more to do with things like Accupuncture, Herbalism, Ayurveda, Homeopathy etc, and how we define them; as complementary/alternative etc.

    "Nutritionists" is a tricky one: the term "Nutritionist" isn't legally protected. Some nutritionists have a BSc degree in Human Nutrition and Dietetics, and the only difference (educationally speaking) between them and dieticians is that they didn't do the 6 month clinical practice rotation necessary for state registration as a dietician. Such people tend to work in the food industry rather than with patients.
    Then, on the other hand, you've got people like "Dr." Gillian McKeith who call themselves Nutritionists but don't have any real, properly recognised qualifications.


    * That said, there are some medical doctors, pharmacists, dieticians etc who do include alternative treatments in their practice.


  • #49
    Capt'n Midnight
    Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 96,078 Mod ✭✭✭✭Capt'n Midnight


    what is the politically correct term for "medicine that isn't evidence based"


  • #50
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    I cal it bull****.


  • #51
    goingpostal
    Closed Accounts Posts: 858 ✭✭✭goingpostal


    I always think that mainstream medicine/alternative 'medicine' is a false, or at best, a very poor dichotomy. A much better dichotomy that works for me is evidence-based medicine vs faith-based 'medicine'. And remember folks: The best possible outcome to having an argument with a quack is to be able to say that you won an argument with a quack. :D


  • Advertisement
  • #52
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/04/18/michael-specter-talks-denialism/

    fantastic


  • #53
    N8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 458 ✭✭N8


    goingpostal wrote: »
    A much better dichotomy that works for me is evidence-based medicine vs faith-based 'medicine'.

    Leaving aside goal orientated care do you understand the lack of evidence behind every day medical practice?



    bleg wrote: »
    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/04/18/michael-specter-talks-denialism/

    fantastic

    scientific evangelism at its best

    what a egotistical fanatic - unfortunately he mixes up so many scientific successes with other unrelated issues and vested interests that his talk became scientific evangelism where his 'scientific' proof was better than everyone else's proof

    seen the same with american christian chaps on stage getting carried away with themselves


  • #54
    lonestargirl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,501 ✭✭✭lonestargirl


    N8 wrote: »
    Leaving aside goal orientated care do you understand the lack of evidence behind every day medical practice?

    You keep making this statement. Can you give me 10 examples of everyday medical practices that are not evidence based?


    In my opinion:

    Conventional Medicine = evidence based
    Alternative medicine = not evidence based, used instead of conventional medicine
    Complementary medicine = treatments that are not central to the patient's care but which complement and add to it (e.g. yoga, tai chi, diet in certain cases, exercise). It is used in addition to conventional medicine.


  • #55
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    N8 wrote: »

    scientific evangelism at its best

    what a egotistical fanatic - unfortunately he mixes up so many scientific successes with other unrelated issues and vested interests that his talk became scientific evangelism where his 'scientific' proof was better than everyone else's proof

    seen the same with american christian chaps on stage getting carried away with themselves


    Gotta love the way you call anybody that disagrees with you skepdicks, evangelists, fanatics, cynics and close minded.

    It's OK though, I wasn't posting that video for you or others like you.


  • #56
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    Oh jesus this old chestnut
    I could rant for days on this one.

    Suffice it to say this:
    The difference between conventional medicine and alternative medicine is a combination of ignorance and politics.
    On both sides.

    Now let me off this thread


  • #57
    locum-motion
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,144 ✭✭✭locum-motion


    opinion guy wrote: »
    ...this old chestnut...

    You like that phrase, don't you?
    :D


  • #58
    opinion guy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,000 ✭✭✭✭opinion guy


    locum-motion wrote: »
    You like that phrase, don't you?
    :D

    hahaha as I was tpying that I thought to myself - I've used this alot lately I wonder will anyone notice :P


  • #59
    bleg
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,848 ✭✭✭bleg


    opinion guy wrote: »
    Oh jesus this old chestnut
    I could rant for days on this one.

    Suffice it to say this:
    The difference between conventional medicine and alternative medicine is a combination of ignorance and politics.
    On both sides.


    So they're not so different after all *hugs homeopath*


  • #60
    rbrbrb
    Closed Accounts Posts: 43 ✭rbrbrb


    Tell you what N8, if you ever lose a limb I'll give you the number of a good homeopath.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    the watchman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 841 ✭✭✭the watchman


    Hi,
    I can't seem to find appropriate thread to post so perhaps mods might re-post elswhere, thanks in advance.

    I was advised recently by doctors to go on Aspirin and statin drugs for a mild case of PAD. I decided to research any alternative remedies and came across the following site:

    www.altmedangel.com

    I found the alternatives to aspirin and statin mentioned on the site most interesting. Perhaps the most interesting aspect is that the site is 'not for profit' and was created by a man who had a lifetime of illness which was never successfully dealt with untill recently. If you visit the site click on 'about the author'. Only 3/4 paragraphs or so but quite amazing.

    Hope this may be of interest to others.

    Thanks for reading.


Advertisement