Why?

[seren]

Hi there,

I found my way here through a rather convoluted path. I guess I'm a sceptic regarding conspiracy theories and I certainly have no time for homeopathy.
Having said that I must admit to hovering on the borders of woo-woo land, at least from your perspective, since I have an interest in herbal medicine (I don't pretend to be knowledgeable about it, but I have time for the idea).

Which brings me to my questions. Since, as your article on it states, plants do contain active compounds which can affect the human body and mind (whether for good or ill), surely it's not a case of being "sceptical" of it? As a notion it does have some basis in fact, unlike, say Mediumship or Homeopathy. It seems to me that there's a distinction between out and out bunkum and poorly-tested science. What is it exactly that people are sceptical of in Western Herbal medicine? Concern I could understand, if the remedies are as untested as you suggest, but not scepticism. Have herbalists made claims that can be disproved? If so, I'd be interested in seeing them for my own education.

Apart from that, my only other question is why? I can see why people would wish to debunk racist nonsense from the likes of David Icke, and I can see why so-called spiritualists and mediums could be harmful, but really I don't see why it's a problem if some daftie wants to lie around with polished rocks on their head listening to whale song. If they get something out of it, who am I to complain? Same as people who go to church. Doesn't do anything for me, but each to their own. You could argue that at the very extreme people may attempt to cure cancer with psychic healing or something- but that really is an extreme.

Grateful for your consideration of my questions.

[Jocky]

Hi Seren, and a warm welcome to UKS :wavey:

You are definitely acting in a properly skeptical manner, if you ask me - questioning what you read, trying to get further info. Nobody in a skeptic organisation should ever object to probing questioning, conducted in a rational and reasonable manner :)


I don't see why it's a problem if some daftie wants to lie around with polished rocks on their head listening to whale song. If they get something out of it, who am I to complain? Same as people who go to church. Doesn't do anything for me, but each to their own.

I agree with many of your sentiments here - people have freedom of action in a free country, and if they really must do this kinda daft stuff then let 'em. However there are two real cruch points when I think it ceases to become alright, when it really grates on me to just 'let it go'.

1. There is a potential for harm in false claims made for so-called remedies - if people lie about with crystals on their heads when they really should go to see a proper doctor, there is a danger that their condition will deteriorate. It doesn't have to be as extreme as cancer to be dangerous (although there have been tragic instances when exactly that has happened).

2. There are lots of people making lots of money out of palpably false claims - if you picked up your crystal from the seashore then that's one thing, but if you were fleeced for thirty quid by a snake-oil salesman for it then you've been done. Consumers have a right to be protected from such con tricks, just as they should be protected from misleading advertising or sales of any other sorts of goods.

The same kind of arguments can be applied to some flavours of religion (I stress some - there's a big topic for debate there!). For example, somebody who thinks they've been "healed by faith", and has made a substantial 'donation to the church' to express their gratitude, may suffer a damaging relapse and end up worse off than they were to start with.

As far as herbal remedies are concerned, as you say they are a different thing to homeopathy - at least they've got something in them which hasn't been diluted by a factor of many millions! However, they are not prescribed by doctors and I believe there are dangers that they may contain things which are contra-indicated with conventional treatments, and issues of this sort. There are other here more knowledgable about this than me, I leave it to them to discuss it.

[Admin]

Hi Seren, and welcome. O0

I think you're equating skepticism with disbelief. Skepticism is about finding out the truth in matters - not opposing things for the sake of it.

Being a Skeptic and being sceptical are two different things.

If there's one area of alternative medicine that has promise it's herbal medicine. I will qualify that by saying that the scientific study of herbal medicine is where the promise lies.

As for the harm issue. Well as with all alternative medicine it can appear to be quite harmless but can actually be quite dangerous. People self-diagnose (when they have no medical skill at all), and many herbal practitioners, who are also medically unqualified, take on the role of doctor and claim to be able to cure all sorts of ailments including cancer.

If someone is seriously ill and they turn to a herbalist for help it could be the last decision they make (!)

I did a couple of commentary entries on the "what's the harm?" issue here: http://www.ukskeptics.com/commentary_display.php?d=11-05#whats_the_harm

There's a link to a radio show which illustrates the dangers beautifully.

These things are harmless until we ever rely on them. For most people, most of the time they are harmless, but we all have our crunch points in life and if we make a wrong decision based on a false belief that could be it.

[tkingdoll]

Hi seren, welcome to the forum!

First off, I should point out that herbal medicice and alternative medicine are by no means the same. Herbs are in fact the basis for many drugs (prescription or over-the-counter), however often the amount of the herb you would need to ingest to have the same effect as the concentrated synthesised form in a pill is huge. Imagine eating a cricket bat to cure your headache, and you're about there.

Sadly, complementary and alternative medicince practitioners claiming to cure cancer are not the extreme, they are the norm, and as such pose a risk to society. If you are faced with a terminal illness, you will of course try anything - and the 'nicer' the proposed cure, the more attractive it becomes. What would you rather do - take vitamins and homeopathic pills, or go through gruelling surgery and chemotherapy? Unfortunately, many people diagnosed with cancer try the alternative route first, and by the time they realise it isn't work, it's too late to treat by other methods.

Sure, if people want to listen to whale song and play with crystals, that's entirely up to them. But if someone is selling them a 'cure' which has simply not been proven, then that customer is not only being scammed, but risking their health. People have a right not to be conned by false promises. If you go into something knowing all the facts (for example that crystal healing does not stand up to controlled testing) and you still choose to believe it, fine and groovy. But most people do not go and research the claims themselves, they simply take the word of the seller and may not get proper medical treatment because of it.

Regarding people who go to church - yes each to their own, I agree. But what happens when a few religious folk start to push their religious beliefs onto everyone else? What happens when it's your government doing it? For example, in the USA, the government has an agenda for Intelligent Design to be taught in schools and for evolution to be discredited.

[Admin]

Another quick point.

If a herbal remedy has been tested and shown to work, such as St. John's Wort for mild depression, then you won't find Skeptics arguing against its use.

We follow the evidence to find out what's true; we don't oppose things just because it's 'herbal' (or whatever).

A lot of the claims made for herbs and what they can do are false and that's why we oppose them. That's important to understand.

[seren]

Ok, I think you've probably hit the nail on the head with the difference between being a Skeptic (is that the standard spelling? I thought it was a C!) and being sceptical/ a disbeliever.

I was reading your thread on people's perceptions of skepics and I think this is part of the problem. I haven't thought through a coherent response yet, but I will do.

As for the "scamming" arugment; well firstly I agree that plenty of people waste their money. However, potentially herbal medicine isn't a scam, because it has at least some basis in fact. I don't know what herbalists claim they can do, but anyone who's ever smoked tobacco/taken magic mushrooms/eaten too much nutmeg/taken too many juniper berries (that last would be me....itchy kidneys) will tell you plants have an effect on humans [edited to add: a chemical effect]. Which is why I separate it from homeopathy, crystals, whale song etc etc.

But to the crux of my feeling on this. I think much of the success of woo-woo therapies lies in people's belief in them.
I can't prove it.
Alright, I'll change that too I WONDER whether the success of woo-woo therapies lies in people's belief in them. If that is so, then it is of no concern that you or I would feel cheated if we spent £20 on a rock, or whether we think someone else has. What matters is what THEY think they're getting out of it. If they think they're getting peace of mind, maybe they will: a new-age placebo.

As far as claims of healing killer diseases goes, I've no doubt that some people do make outrageous claims and others choose to believe them. Stricter regulation is perhaps in order, and maybe skeptics can help bring that about. It doesn't mean that the whole thing should be scrapped.

Anyway, thank you for your responses. I am now going to think about the public image of skeptics and why us laity (!!) misinterpret it so much.

[seren]

I know its a bit weird to respond to your own posts, but I'm just laughing at my choice of words earlier- "laity"!

It's just what popped into my head, and I didn't mean to suggest anything by it. I just meant those of us new to the...uh...scene?

You guys really do defy description! :)

[tkingdoll]

You're absolutely right, 'skeptic' should be spelled 'sceptic', but I think most of us don't use the UK spelling because it looks too much like 'septic'.

Also, the skeptic community is very much an international one, so it's much easier to go with the 'k' version. I prefer it anyway, it's a nicer looking word.

[vbloke]

If I remember correctly, skeptic is the Greek form and sceptic is Latin form of the word

[Admin]

I think you're right about regulation seren. What Skeptics have been asking for is that alternative remedies, of all varieties, are appraised by NICE (national institute for clinical excellence) so that those that work can be separated from those that don't.

Like I said, if any treatment can be backed up with evidence then you won't find Skeptics opposing its use.

As for selling things to people being justifiable if they believe it works - well I don't agree with that argument.

Is it OK to sell counterfeit merchandise as long as the customer thinks it's real? I think that selling remedies to people that actually have no real benefit is equivalent to selling counterfeit goods. It's based on willful deception.

[Jocky]

Yep


Greek Skeptikos, from skeptesthai, to examine

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skeptic

I'm sad enough to prefer 'skeptic' mainly for this reason, although like teek I think having a single international label is convenient too.

[Admin]

I also use Skeptic because it does look different to the English and it helps to distinguish between being sceptical (doubtful) and being a Skeptic.

[seren]

Well, I'd say the difference is that a fake handbag is definitely fake. But perhaps thinking you're getting better makes you better?

I googled.

Anecdotal, but this is what I mean. Interesting article if you've not already seen it:

During our stay in Beijing, I developed a very sore throat, due, I thought, to the visibly polluted air. This made it difficult to engage in conversations and deliver the speeches that were expected of us. Eventually, I was taken to the outpatient clinic at Beijing Hospital, where, after a very brief examination, was given two medications. The first, labeled in both Chinese and English, was erythromycin, an antibiotic. That seemed reasonable enough for what I thought to be a bronchial infection. The second medication was labeled "Chuanbeiye," with the chief ingredients listed as "snake bile, tendril-leafed fritillary bulb, and almond, etc." Our interpreter assured me that she always relied on the snake bile preparation whenever she had any throat problems, but despite her earnest testimonial, I declined to use it. I relied instead upon the erythromycin, and within a few days, my throat recovered. Offered folk medicine and snake oil, I had chosen scientific Western medicine and was healed by it.

Or so I thought. After our return from China, Paul Kurtz recounted this incident in an article in CSICOP's journal, the Skeptical Inquirer. A few months later, a physician responded in letter to the editor:

All too often bronchial infections are due to viruses and therefore not treatable with antibiotics. Unfortunately, there is such a demand from the lay public to treat everything with antibiotics that it is not unusual for the encumbered physician to prescribe them for infections they know cannot be helped by antibiotics. . . . If this was a viral infection, then the antibiotic and the snake bile were of equal efficacy.
.........
Alternative remedies have appeal to the extent that conventional remedies fail to provide relief. Indeed, the areas where alternative therapies seem to have most appeal is in the very areas where conventional therapies are not able to satisfy the expectations of the consumer, e.g., chronic headaches and backaches, low energy, nausea, arthritis, gastrointestinal complaints, allergies, things which are often caused by or exacerbated by stress or emotional disorders. The alternative therapist, through validating the client's complaints (and often his or her unconventional worldview), providing hope for overcoming the complaints, and giving much personal attention and support, can indirectly serve some of the emotional needs that often underlie many complaints that physicians dismiss.

James Alcock PhD
http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/altpsych.html


Further:

The autonomic and neuroendocrine systems of the CNS are recognized as two main pathways over which the mind and body interact. These systems communicate with each other and immune cells (lymphocytes) in a complex feedback loop. The relation of cognitive information (perception, belief, emotion) to lymphocytes is taken as evidence that they "do indeed alter immunity" (Watkins, 1996, p 58).
http://www.members.tripod.com/random_sage/part1c.htm
............
Camille Chatterjee, in the most recent issue of Psychology Today (1999), note a study in which Heike Mahler, PhD., et al., found that watching a video of survivors or of recovery exercises prior to coronary bypass surgery altered patients' appraisal of their healing process; the patients' belief that they were in charge of their recuperation translated into a 'speedy recovery'. The placebo effect is simply the name given to this phenomenon when researchers find improvements in health not claimed by treatment:

. . . it is now clear from PNI [psychoimmunology] that an expectation of recovery can alter subjective feelings of well-being, and result in autonomic activation as well as the production of pituitary hormones. Thus there are specific testable pathways by which expectation (the placebo effect) can alter immunity. -Watkins, 1996, p. 59.

http://www.members.tripod.com/random_sage/part1d.htm


I'm not sure that it IS selling fake goods!

[Physiotherapist]

I have a friend who is a practitioner of herbal medicine and I have to say that he is extremely well trained. He studied biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, pathology, differential diagnosis, phytochemistry, phytomedicine amongst other things.

He is trained to know the actions of all the herbs that he prescribes and he also knows all the drug interactions as well.

Pactitioners who are trained in this way are safe practitioners who know when to treat and when to refer. He is also a member of the National Institute of Medical Herbalists.

[Admin]

Seren,

What they are describing there is the placebo effect. It's still not fully understood but it is pretty much a psychological response, not a physical one.

The placebo effect is invoked by all medical interventions not just alternative ones and that's why it makes so much more sense to use proven remedies rather than merely placebos as they work above the placebo effect.

The placebo effect seems to rely to a large extent on the belief and expectation that an intervention will work but this raises a dilemma when treating people with bogus remedies - to invoke the placebo effect you have to lie to them.

See Professor David Colquhoun's page here: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Pharmacology/dc-bits/quack.html#dilemma

Now placebo effects can make you feel better but they don't actually make you better. The danger here is that someone who's seeing an alternative practitioner may start feeling better because of placebo effects but the feel-good factor of the placebo effect could be masking the symptoms of a worsening condition (!)

Remember, people in general and most alternative medical practitioners are not qualified to make a medical diagnosis; so this is a real, although probably small, danger.


Well, I'd say the difference is that a fake handbag is definitely fake. But perhaps thinking you're getting better makes you better?

No, thinking you're getting better only results in you thinking you're getting better. And that's not always a good thing.

[Admin]

I have a friend who is a practitioner of herbal medicine and I have to say that he is extremely well trained. He studied biochemistry, anatomy, physiology, pathology, differential diagnosis, phytochemistry, phytomedicine amongst other things.

He is trained to know the actions of all the herbs that he prescribes and he also knows all the drug interactions as well.

Pactitioners who are trained in this way are safe practitioners who know when to treat and when to refer. He is also a member of the National Institute of Medical Herbalists.


The exception that proves the rule? :ponder:

Even if this person does know all of the herbs and their properties and he's also qualified to make a medical diagnosis, and will refer patients to a real doctor where appropriate, it still doesn't validate the vast majority who aren't like that.

Some homeopaths are qualified doctors but that doesn't make homeopathy, or the practitioners, any more valid.

[huw-l]

Skeptics do have a bit of a downer on herbal medicine because it's often sold as being better for you than conventional medicine. That somehow because herbs are 'natural' they aren't capable of causing harm. It's this sort of magical thinking that gets skeptics' backs up.

It should also be remembered that herbs that work well often end up as convential medicine. A recent examples is the chinese herb sweet wormwood which has now produced a very effective anti-malarial called artemisinin. http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/en/malaria/TheParasite/pfarte1.html

[Aardvark]

The Anti Cancer agents, the vinca alkaloids vinblastin and vincristin were origianally extracted from the Madagascan Perriwinkle.

[seren]

Well I would agree that the first article is referring specifically to the placebo effect but I don't know about the second. There appears to be some suggestion that belief can make a physical difference in some (albeit limited) cases (bearing in mind I'm not a biologist or medically trained).

All the same, I am minded to think that provided there are regulations in place to ensure that practitioners refer patients to GPs, there is no great moral wrong in a bit of snake oil. I will think on it, perhaps I'm wrong.

As for herbal medicine being touted as a "healthier" approach to health (???), personally it wasn't that so much as a dislike of the practices of major pharmaceutical companies and animal testing that made me interested in herbalism. Unfortunately herbalists do play on the hippy-dippy natural-remedy thing; they then get accused of trivialising potentially dangerous drugs and being con-men- opposite ends of the spectrum at the same time!

Anyway, thanks all for the discussion, I'm off home now (didn't get much work done today....).

[Physiotherapist]

Not all herbalists are like that and yes, herbs have a physical effect on the body and can be dangerous, so that is exactly why most herbalists are trained - the majority now in fact.

[Admin]

Not all herbalists are like that and yes, herbs have a physical effect on the body and can be dangerous, so that is exactly why most herbalists are trained - the majority now in fact.



Trained to what level and by which institutions?

There's still no regulation for herbalists and just saying that they're 'trained' could mean anything. Chiropractors are trained and regulated but it doesn't justify what they practise.

[Jocky]

Well I would agree that the first article is referring specifically to the placebo effect but I don't know about the second. There appears to be some suggestion that belief can make a physical difference in some (albeit limited) cases (bearing in mind I'm not a biologist or medically trained).

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that mental state making a (limited) physical difference to a person's condition is the placebo effect! Is the above statement tautological ... :-\

[Ginger Rogers]

This subject is very interesting to me as I have some medical problems, which maybe have 'emotional' cause, but which affect my daily life, namely IBS, general gastro-intestinal problems, fatigue, and anxiety (which is the cause of the first two more than likely)
Conventional doctor says 'Theres nothing we can do for you' ! ? ! Now to quote anatasia I'm sick and tired of always being sick and tired, so what can I do? I believe I might have food allergy* of some sort but doc says not, I have had a gastroscopy and doc says if I was coeliac it would have shown up on that.
So I'm left to believe its 'all in the mind' but my end symptoms are not, so what can I do to feel better,apart from herbal remedies, homeopathy, or other 'unconventional' treatments such as reflexology etc.
I was always petrified that I had something more serious wrong with me but after blood tests/description of symptoms docs have always told me depression/anxiety.
Anyway, point I'm trying to make is, I want a cure of course but i've tried other unconventional things and suffice to say it hasn't worked so far. leading me to think it probably works by the placebo effect and since I'm so skeptical of things in general no wonder it didn't work!

I've yet to try a traditional chinese herbalist....

Oh and the other thing is, everything on this planet is derived from 'natural' people forget that, we only have what is available on the planet in the first place. Doesn't mean it's safe! Arsenic is natural. it'll still kill you though O0
So all drugs are made from 'natural' substances of some description, are they not?

[Admin]

The placebo effect is largely a psychological response. Some researchers think it is 100% psychological (reinterpreting of symptoms etc.) whilst some think that small physical changes can occur with a placebo response (reduction of stress, anxiety, release of endorphins).

I'm with the second lot. Conditions, such as eczema, which are exacerbated by stress for example often respond quite well to placebo treatments as a result of the patient's stress and anxiety levels reducing after treatment.

To me, however, this big problem is that people think that the placebo effect is some sort of magical cure.

I've had many arguments with advocates of alternative medicine and they often say things like "well even if it is only a placebo, it's still curing people". Of course it's not curing people; although it may help them reinterpret their symptoms.

It's also thought of as a purely beneficial response. Again though, that's not always the case. Someone who has a life-threatening condition and who goes to an alternative practitioner may feel better because of the placebo effect, but as the placebo effect is not a healing response, their condition will continue to worsen even though they may feel better (for a while at least).

The placebo effect can be very beneficial to the patient as it can help them psychologically, so its effect should be maximised. It should be obvious that this should be done as a part of proper evidence-based medicine by real doctors who know what they're doing.

[Ginger Rogers]

I completely agree of course. However, do you think that it's possible that 'herbal' or other such rememdies can work in some folk and not others? - regardless of the placebo effect?
To me something either works or it doesn't but even antidpressesants it's known can not work in some people. I took fluoxetine for a couple of months and it had no effect. Seroxat on the other hand did work but helped me get fat and lazy lol. However I was much worse when I came off of it.

I did go to an English 'chinese medicine' guy and he wasn't great. But I did take Sib. Ginseng and I have to say I really did feel less tired when taking it, and I didn't expect it to work....

[Admin]

Things like IBS do respond well to placebo treatments which suggests that there's a strong psychological aspect to them, although that's not to say that there's no underlying physical cause also.

I think an important point also is that if a person has an illness that is 100% guaranteed to be psychosomatic, the symptoms and suffering are very real to them. They're not making it all up for fun.

Another point is that knowing about the placebo effect does not make you immune from its effects. ??? It seems counter-intuitive but it's found that when people are treat with things that they know shouldn't work many still get a benefit!

And many become convinced by this and think there's something going on that science can't explain.....

[Admin]

I completely agree of course. However, do you think that it's possible that 'herbal' or other such rememdies can work in some folk and not others? - regardless of the placebo effect?


Yes. Herbs do contain active compounds so it's quite possible that they will have a physiological effect. The problem is that they haven't been properly tested and evaluated so the compounds they contain could also have other undesirable effects. And no-one knows either way (!)

The new legislation for selling herbs now states that they have to be proven to be safe (although not that they actually work) so those herbs that do have strong compounds in them are more likely to be withdrawn from sale and replaced by benign, but safe, herbs. This is across the counter herbs BTW.

[Ginger Rogers]

hmmm..

Do you think my siberian ginseng thing was the placebo effect at work, or is there any scientific evidence to support it as effective - which herbal rememdies do have scientific evidence to back it up?

[Admin]

hmmm..

Do you think my siberian ginseng thing was the placebo effect at work


Possibly.

There are not always good trials available to look at but I found this one: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14971626&dopt=Abstract

As is almost always the case - not proven but further testing is recommended...

[Mongrel]

A quick check of the Big Bumper Book of medicines (Martindales #34) lists no studies and has the profile information (my bold) along with a warning about interaction with Digoxin
Siberian Ginseng is reported to enhance natural resistance and to improve performance under stress
The same entry is under Ginseng as they are part of the same family but different enough to warrant a new entry.

I'm afraid it's probably placebo :(

Edit - although a quick peek at Johns link, to my untrained eye, does seem to suggest that general fatigue symptoms respond well to "I'm doing something", the placebo\Ginseng is the 'Magic Feather'

[Aardvark]

I completely agree of course. However, do you think that it's possible that 'herbal' or other such rememdies can work in some folk and not others? - regardless of the placebo effect?
To me something either works or it doesn't but even antidpressesants it's known can not work in some people. I took fluoxetine for a couple of months and it had no effect. Seroxat on the other hand did work but helped me get fat and lazy lol. However I was much worse when I came off of it.

I did go to an English 'chinese medicine' guy and he wasn't great. But I did take Sib. Ginseng and I have to say I really did feel less tired when taking it, and I didn't expect it to work....



The various members of the SSRI and SNRI family have differeing levels of sedation or activation in addition to their anti-depressant effects. Indeed they also have differing side effect profiles, as this is to do with how specific they are for each type of 5HT receptor and where it is found in the brain. Some cause sicknes or Nand V, this is a result of some action on the 5HT3 receptors found in the vomiting centre.

Depression should be treated for 6 months after sympotoms have resolved, clinicians suggest that relaspe may occure more frequently if treatement is terminated sooner.

For fatigue you could try gentle excercise or joining a yoga or dance class. Taking up a new hobby or changing your diet may help. I get less fatigue when I cut out sugar carbs from my diet. There is a sound physiological basis for this. They key thing is that you need to lift your mood. Join a new social group.
Mood does influnce healing and mood also has an influnce on certain aspects of the immune system. Drepression is associated with changes in stress handling that can be picked up by a dexamethazone suppression test.

There is sound evidence dietary supplementation of EFAs in children. I found that I handled fatigue better after 6 months of 1g daily omega 3 fish oil, however this could have been a placebo responce, but as I am also male and approaching middle age I would benefit from the reduced CV risk that this level of supplementation delivers.

The biggest issue with herbal remedies is as John poited out that we can not rely on the consistency of either active drug or rate of adsorption or indeed of side effects from the many other lesser active chemicals contained within.

Pharmacuticals take these active ingredients and create a stable reliable compound that works within defined parameters for 'most' people. Pharmacuticals are consistent in activity and side effects as far as we can make them

[Ginger Rogers]

Thanks that's interesting!

I did try yoga for several months but it was expensive and I found I wasn't benefitting plus it made my hyperacidity worse..
it's strange because everyone said take up yoga it'll make you feel better but I didn't, I had high expectations and I was disappointed.

incidentally I was on AD's for nearly 2 years..

I am fairly busy, I am doing an evening college course, which I find the work hard to keep up with.. I am learning Guitar and I work 6 days a week and i have family stresses. Maybe it's why my 'depression' has turned to anxiety.

I was thinking bout trying something else but i've forgotten what it's called! it's kinesio something therapy... but I need to find out much more about it before parting with the reddies.
it claims to help* combat stress, depression, anxiety, allergies, ibs... Clearly I'm not convninced but she was recommended to me by somebody..

[tkingdoll]

Applied kinesiology? That's as woo as they come.

It's a pseudoscience, pure and simple. Avoid! You will be wasting your money. It does not work better than placebo under controlled testing conditions. Therefore, it is placebo.

Some useful links here: http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter58.html#3

and here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/ideomotor.html

[Ginger Rogers]

blimey, thanks for that, glad i asked :o Might try hypnotherapy at least we know that can work!

[Admin]

Might try hypnotherapy at least we know that can work!


D'ya wanna bet? ;D

[Ginger Rogers]

Might try hypnotherapy at least we know that can work!


D'ya wanna bet? ;D


i did say CAN :D

[Admin]

;D ;D ;D

Weasel words (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weasel_words).

I make good use of them too. ;)

[Ginger Rogers]

actually I found out it's 'creative kinesiology and sound therapy'

:o

[Admin]

That sounds even worse. :-X

Seriously though, I can understand people who have has little success with conventional therapies wanting to try out anything that might have some perceived chance of working.

What I don't like to see is people spending, often a lot of, money chasing some miraculous cure that just isn't there. :(

Be careful Kristie. :)

[Ginger Rogers]

yes quite, thanks for the friendly warning, I don't buy it either so I'm not going to part with my reddies for something so.... pointless?

[seren]

This isn't an argument of any kind, more a musing on the subject, but isn't it just as bad to instil in the populace a faith in an approach to healthcare that's sanctioned by science, but which not only sometimes fails utterly, but also fails to help patients pick up the pieces after the "incurable" diagnosis? Which is certainly what happened to me- I left the consultant's office in physical pain from the examination, feeling personally violated because of the nature of the examination, and utterly despondent and depressed from the "incurable" verdict.

I didn't seek any alternative therapies, but actually since its now a "pain management" issue, this might be where they come into their own. I don't think I'd ever consider applied kinesiology though!

[Admin]

This isn't an argument of any kind, more a musing on the subject, but  isn't it just as bad to instil in the populace a faith in an approach to healthcare that's sanctioned by science, but which not only sometimes fails utterly, but also fails to help patients pick up the pieces after the "incurable" diagnosis?

Scientific medicine isn't perfect, but by and large, it can back up its claims. Alternative medicine promises much but generally can't back up its claims.

We shouldn't forget either that any failing of scientific medicine does not add any weight to the claims of alternative medicine.

I know what you're saying though - we shouldn't view scientific medicine as a perfect solution. We should be just as skeptical of conventional medicine as of alternatives.

[Ginger Rogers]

Do you think that practitioners of alternative therapies know that what theyre doing is a load of Bollox and are deliberately ripping people off (obviously some are yes) or do you think the majority truely believe what they're practising can help people?

What are peoples thoughts on reflexology? is that a load of cobblers as well?

[Nettles]

He is trained to know the actions of all the herbs that he prescribes and he also knows all the drug interactions as well.

Pactitioners who are trained in this way are safe practitioners who know when to treat and when to refer. He is also a member of the National Institute of Medical Herbalists.

You posted on 4 July when many herbalists were recommending that menopausal women should use Black Cohosh as a source of phytoestrogens in spite of the fact that its safety and effectiveness had not been assessed beyond six months' use, and in spite of evidence that Black Cohosh might damage the liver (http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/177_08_211002/whi10119_fm.html).. Since then Black Cohosh has turned out to cause serious liver damage (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5191434.stm). Women who had taken medically-prescribed 17 beta oestradiol derived from herbal sources would not have been endangered this way.

If herbalists say they know "the actions of the herbs" but don't know about the "rots your liver" action then I'm not impressed.

(sorry Nettles, your URL's were a bit wonky - vbloke)

[Nettles]

Scientific medicine isn't perfect, but by and large, it can back up its claims.


Two things about scientific medicine make it uniquely safe and effective:
If it can be proven to work, and its safety accords with the benefits to be derived, then it's incorporated into scientific medicine; and
Scientific medicine tests and rejects things that don't work or which are so unsafe as to outweigh their benefits.

Often, naturopathic medicine doesn't incorporate things which are philosophically incompatible but which are proven effective; and only very rarely does naturopathic medicine test and reject things that don't prove effective or which prove unsafe.

[Admin]

There's a report in The Lancet tomorrow about TCM causing liver damage.

See: http://www.skeptics.org.uk/commentary_display.php?d=07-06#clt

Herbs do contain active compounds and yes that means they can work, but it also means they can be dangerous. The trouble is, as they are not properly tested, no-one knows until it's too late.

[seren]

If it can be proven to work, and its safety accords with the benefits to be derived, then it's incorporated into scientific medicine; and
Scientific medicine tests and rejects things that don't work or which are so unsafe as to outweigh their benefits

Part the first- yes, that makes great sense. I suspect that there's more to it than that however- pharmaceutical companies have shareholders and must make profit. As must herbal remedy manufacturers- for either it's about what sells.

Part the second-
That SHOULD be the case. However, look up ""rofecoxib" and "cerivastatin" (that last my father was on until recently. He's much better now). Plus many many other examples. Plus who decides (or rather who should decide) when the costs outweigh the benefits? In drugs that may cause suicidal feelings- seroxat, that anti-malaria one- how many miserable/dead people is too many?

You've linked to a BBC article You've said that Black Cohosh "has turned out to cause serious liver damage" and used that article to back that up. In fact the article says that it MAY do so. It goes on to say that liver damage is rare. Further on down the article, it says that Black Cohosh became popular because research linked the "scientific" medicine of Hormone Replacement Therapy with "a raised risk of heart attack, stroke and breast cancer".

Swings and roundabouts?

I would suggest that your points are correct in theory, but not necessarily in practice.

[Mongrel]

Sorry it took a while for the reply, it's been hot and I've been lazy.

First off: I’m sorry that happened to your father and I’m glad that’s he’s better :)

I think if you step back and look at the relative safety of prescribed drugs we’re still doing well. There will be some, unfortunately, which slip through the net; this is normally due to either the rarity of the side effect ,improper monitoring of a known potential side effect, or poor prescribing practices. I don’t believe anyone will dispute that many modern remedies have been discovered due to herbal medicine usage.What modern pharmaceutical companies do though is go through a controlled, systemic series of tests to find out why the medicine has the effect it does; it isolates the component(s) that cause the beneficial effect (and hopefully identifies and removes any components that may cause harmfull effects)and tries to formulate that component so that the user receives a safe and uniform amount in every dose and then passes to qualified and trained Doctors to prescribe.

The reason that I’m willing to put my faith in modern medicine is the large amount of testing done beforehand and the procedures in place for follow-up once it’s on the market. A typical drug will have spent 4-5 years in the lab being developed and another 1-3 being tested in clinical trials, all of this is while the drug is under its initial (and limited) patent.

Side effects (and EVERYTHING has side effects) are identified and rated on a scale which increases in factors; very common is more than 1 in 10, common is between 1 in 10 and 1 in 100, uncommon is between 1 in 100 and 1 in 1,000, rare is between 1 in 1,000 and 1 in 10,000 and very rare is less than 1 in 10,000. Some drugs even have 1 in 1,000,000 side effects but getting enough data relies on it being an older drug that has been prescribed to a great many people. (Allergic reactions are not included in these figures, as allergies can be impossible to predict). Now consider an average stage 2 or 3 clinical drug trial may have 2,000 people in it; you’re not going to see some of the rarer side effects until it’s been ‘in the wild’, even then it needs to be consistent enough – and reported! - before it can be even tentatively linked to the new drug. New drugs are watched closely for this very reason – they are marked with a ‘black triangle’ that means any and all possible adverse reactions should be reported to the authorities. If there is a link, however tentative, the drug will get pulled from the marketplace until further research can be done, often voluntarily by the manufacturers themselves (being practical people, they don’t want to be sued for negligence)..

Now factor in poor prescribing and monitoring techniques. The rofecoxib documentation mentioned the increased risk of heart problems (as do the SPCs of most Cox-2 inhibitors) both in medical literature and the PIL (Patient Information Leaflet) ( NHS Direct) (http://www.nhsdirect.org.uk/articles/article.aspx?printPage=1&articleId=527)) but was either prescribed as “The next new Wonder Drug”, people demanded it from their doctors because it was new and thus obviously better than what they were currently on (more so in the States as prescription drugs are are advertised on the telly) or improperly monitored over the long term. Cerivastatin has a similar story, known side effects and interactions all properly spelled out, Doctors don’t read it properly or sometimes even when the risk is spelled out to the patient the patient chooses to take the medicine anyway as it’s newer therefore better, bad things happen and the drug company gets blamed ( Netherlands Pharmacovigilance centre (http://www.lareb.nl/documents/drugsaf2002_1133.pdf). The anti-malarial drug (Lariam (http://www.lariam.com/)) was almost withdrawn even though Roche, the manufacturers, stated clearly that it was contraindicated for certain people (Data sheet (http://www.rocheusa.com/products/lariam/pi.pdf)). The fact that it was a once weekly anti-malarial (rather than a take every day anti-malarial) encouraged people to ask for it, even if it wasn’t really necessary for the area they were traveling to. Plus, of course, drugs that affect brain chemistry are always a little more fuzzy;not everyone may receive the same benefit and even if there is a benefit it may take a while it to be perceptible( especially to the user - that subjective vs. objective thing again). (Anecdotally I have a friend who suffered from clinical depression, he went through two drugs that didn’t work for him before finding a third that did, each of the drugs took a couple of months before they could reliably decide what was useful or useless for him) Include the fact that it’s very hard to tell if someone is thinking suicidal thoughts until they attempt it; are they telling the truth, or do they want attention? Are they saying they don’t think about it because they really aren’t, or because if they do then they have to put up with more therapists appointments, won’t get the opportunity to kill themselves, or they will be given drugs they don’t believe they need and get labeled as ‘crazy’?

Finally you have the improper reporting from the popular media. Are they interested in getting across the story with complete, factual accuracy or do they want a shocker (http://www.badscience.net/?p=230) headline? (http://www.badscience.net/?p=8). A quick perusal of the Badscience website will give you many more examples as will the more clinical Hitting the Headlines (http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/hth/archive.asp) archive. I can say though that whilst HRT therapy has "a raised risk of heart attack, stroke and breast cancer" the factor that gives it that raised risk is female hormones (source (http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/short/166/7/760)), it doesn’t matter whether they come from functionally identical, manufactured tablets, the body itself or from Black Cohosh and Soybeans.
The Scientific medicines (scare quotes is going OTT) have a large repository of clinical knowledge that keeps on getting added to The pharmaceutical companies know how and why they work, how to make them efficiently and consistently, this knowledge is constantly being revised in the best traditions of science. On the very rare occasions that things go wrong there is a reporting system in place and now days the manufacturer will withdraw them voluntarily long before the regulatory bodies need to get involved. Even after the event there exists a legal culpability that can assist the unlucky people or their families in the form of class action lawsuits against the pharmaceutical company and individual actions against the Doctors who couldn’t read a form

Now let’s compare this to herbal medicines. You have a long series of anecdotes and records of ‘traditional usage’ which sound as though the herb may be useful. Collect herb, chop up and put into pill\powder\capsule\tea\poultice form with no concern how much of the active ingredient it actually contains, sometimes through bad production methods but mainly because the plants themselves are inconsistent. Now sell this product through health food shops, prompted by poorly trained staff and special offers, over the internet alluding to the fact that it ‘helps with’ <malady>, although you’re not allowed to outright say it cures it (or in what way it will help it, come to that) as it’ll lose it’s ‘food supplement’ label so quick it’ll make your eyes water and the only instructions you receive are “3 daily”. If something bad might be associated with it –side effects, remember? Everything has them, including herbal medicines) are you going to trust the health food shop to tell you? Do they have your phone number? Are they going to check it doesn’t interact with everything else you may be taking? Or are they going to use argue that it’s not that bad when you think about it – like they did with Kava-Kava
But complementary health campaigners claim side effects from Kava-kava are rare, and the risk of liver damage is similar to that associated with Valium. (source (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2543567.stm)). Let’s say you’re one of those people unlucky enough to have a serious liver problem due to a herbal medicine. Was anybody monitoring you for any potential side effects? Did the assistant in the health food shop check with you each time you bought more whether of not you were having any problems or possible side effects? Was there a chain of medical responsibility that you can take action against?Nope. Is there a governing council or regulatory body that you can appeal to? – nope. What you are is up a creek without your paddle and stuck on a donor list whilst trying to sue the manufacturer with the burden of proof being on you.

[seren]

What you say at the end is what I believe- greater regulation is needed. That doesn't make herbal medicine a scam, a sham, or flim-flam (or spam....sorry, I'm in an odd mood today). Which is kind of my whole point. It's not the same as putting microwaved rocks* on your noggin, or waving your arms about over people. it's like a divide between "complete bollocks" and "not yet proven to be bollocks or not".


I'll elaborate more tomorrow, I've got to go home!


*would microwaving rocks heat them up or explode the microwave?

[Ginger Rogers]

Hope I'm not going off topic too much here ...

You would think that they would have found treatments with less side affects by now or less severe side effects. Take chemotherapy for example, the side effects are so awful they make the patient very sick, it's not the cancer that makes them ill to start with, its more the treatment. Why are the side effects so appalling and is it any wonder people suffering from cancer, espeically advanced cancer where perhaps the patient is told the likelyhood % of them recovering is small, that they seek alternate medicine - what is the point of having vile treatment that makes you so ill if you're likely to die anyway?

[Mongrel]

Hope I'm not going off topic too much here ...

You would think that they would have found treatments with less side affects by now or less severe side effects. Take chemotherapy for example, the side effects are so awful they make the patient very sick, it's not the cancer that makes them ill to start with, its more the treatment. Why are the side effects so appalling and is it any wonder people suffering from cancer, espeically advanced cancer where perhaps the patient is told the likelyhood % of them recovering is small, that they seek alternate medicine - what is the point of having vile treatment that makes you so ill if you're likely to die anyway?


Short on time so I’ll be brief,

There are many forms of cancer all of which have different symptoms, treatment, ease of detection and potential triggers. All cancers, simply put, involve the body erroneously producing new cells where none are needed. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer) puts it as
Cancer is a class of diseases or disorders characterized by uncontrolled division of cells and the ability of these cells to invade other tissues, either by direct growth into adjacent tissue through invasion or by implantation into distant sites by metastasis. Metastasis is defined as the stage in which cancer cells are transported through the bloodstream or lymphatic system.

It is very difficult for chemo/radio-therapy to target just the cancer cells in your body, since they are mostly just like the normal cells in your body. Any treatment that kills the cancer cells is also going to be killing your normal cells – hence the nasty side effects. What you aim for is that all the cancer cells die way before a dangerous amount of normal cells die. That’s why with some treatments you get checked before each dose; sometimes your normal cells need more time to recover before another load hits them.

Cancer may not make you feel ill (although you went to the doctor for some reason). It will kill you, though, a lot of the time. The treatments may make you feel quite ill. They will stop the cancer killing you, though, a lot of the time, which is how the effectiveness of an anti-cancer therapy is measured. When developing cures, researchers first of all look for things that work – anything, so long as it works. Then, once they have something that works, they start looking for ways to reduce or control nasty side effects (there are some very good anti-nausea drugs available due to research into controlling cancer chemotherapy nausea) or combine various treatments to get the same effectiveness at lower doses

There are three main ways to remove cancerous cells; surgery, chemotherapy and radiation therapy. They’ll often be used in combinations depending on the type and severity of the cancer

The image that most people have of chemo is a couple of decades out of date. Work is continually being done to reduce the side effects of the drugs and where that’s not possible to manage the side effects to reduce discomfort. That’s not to say the drugs are nice, they have to be fairly potent to have a hope of destroying the cancer (which is just another bit of your body), but you’re not left nauseous and vomiting for days. Some treatments can be as low stress as getting a one hour slow infusion every other week and feeling fluey a couple of days after it.

The specialists in the field are honest about patients’ chances and they’re basing their diagnosis on thousands of other cases that are similar to the one on front of them using similar treatments. For the nastier stuff they’ll often express it as “With this treatment there’s an X% chance of survival over Y years, without treatment it’s Z%”, it’s a lot easier for people to comprehend.

[Cuddles]

I think one of the big problems with herbal remedies is the definition of "herb". The botanical definition is a plant that does not develop a woody part, but most dictionaries also have a definition along the lines of "a plant used for medical or theraputic purposes". This means someone can claim pretty much any plant is herb and sell it as a remedy and many people will accept this purely because it is marketed as a herb.

[Mongrel]

I think one of the big problems with herbal remedies is the definition of "herb". The botanical definition is a plant that does not develop a woody part, but most dictionaries also have a definition along the lines of "a plant used for medical or theraputic purposes". This means someone can claim pretty much any plant is herb and sell it as a remedy and many people will accept this purely because it is marketed as a herb.


Off topic - I have a similar problem when people tell me about fruit 'teas', if it doesn't have leaves from a tea bush it's an infusion >:(

[Ginger Rogers]

Thanks for the chemo info Mongrel, O0 you're right about the image of it that I had ::)

[Mongrel]

Thanks for the chemo info Mongrel, O0 you're right about the image of it that I had ::)


No problem and happy to help :) (oh and because it was late I forgot to credit my girlfriend, a pharmacist, for assisstance :-[. Thank you Rachel!) I'd just say that it's hard to get reliable information, unless your suddenly faced with the grim reality, as most of the treatments improve in small incremental steps - hardly newsworthy ::). That and the misdirection from the alternative treatments camp can make it hard to sort the wheat from the chaff sometimes.

For a bit more insight it's well worth reading this thread and associated essay (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=55887) over at the JREF by Fowlsound, whilst mainly a rant at Altie practitioners it does go into some details about his ongoing battle with cancer.

[seren]

One thing that does disgust me is that fresh fruit diet that claims to cure cancer. That's so bloody cruel it's unbelievable.

[Mongrel]

One thing that does disgust me is that fresh fruit diet that claims to cure cancer. That's so bloody cruel it's unbelievable.

or the coffee enemas (http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Cancer/kg.html), or the high potency Vitamin C (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/katie_wernecke_i_have_a_bad_feeling_abou_1.php), or Laetrile therapy (http://www.1cure4cancer.com/controlcancer/information/laetrile.htm), or the Hoxley treatment (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2006/08/ron_rosenbaum_on_the_cherrix_case.php), or Hydrogen Peroxide injections (http://www.cancertutor.com/Cancer/HydrogenPeroxide.html), or anything from this site (http://www.cancertutor.com/), or homeopathy (http://www.cancure.org/homeopathy.htm), or....well, you get the message.

Suggesting to a sufferer of a such a profound disease a treatment that either has no clinical validation or, worse, has been tested and refuted by the medical profession makes these quacks and fraudsters some of the worst scum sucking <-------removed for politeness-----> out there.