Interesting article."Alt believers journey back to science"

A well-written article presenting both sides well. For me, alternative has a role to play in conventional medicine. What I struggle with is the misrepresentations of what alternative is capable of given the lack of evidence. It's one thing to drink mint tea to soothe mild indigestion, it's another to claim it will cure a bleeding ulcer. The "false hope" aspect of alternative sticks in my craw. There's something so predatory and wrong about it, not only because it takes advantage of desperate people, but it inherently blames the victim.

hi debic,

Thanks for the post. I am hoping that the degree from a naturopathic college is only part of what counts towards board certification in integrative medicine. I hope a big chunk is a degree from a conventional medical school. I so like the quote, which I'm misquoting, that goes something like this. Just because an airplane is flawed, doesn't mean flying carpets work.

I think everything goes in cycles. I remember the 'sixties when the buzzwords were "organic" and "natural", although it was a little less mainstream then than it is now. But it cycled out of favor and, now, it's cycled back in.

Conventional (or science-based) medicine isn't perfect; I think we all know that. It has its weaknesses, its pitfalls, and its contradictions, but it continues to strive to uncover the source of disease and the best way to treat it through proven methods. Unfortunately, the human body is so complex, answers aren't always possible as quickly as we'd like them. Each new piece of information uncovered has to be confirmed, tested, verified, corroborated, and held accountable. That takes time and time can be something that someone who is really ill doesn't have. Hence the appeal (and abuse) of alternative "cures".

There's also the belief that "natural" is better and less toxic. The thinking is that it's been around for millennia and; therefore, it must be better for us. After all, our ancestors survived against all odds in the natural world, so it works... right? Well. Not really. Infectious diseases such as smallpox wiped out whole communities. Children died from scarlet fever, diphtheria, measles, and whooping cough. Life expectancy in Neolithic times was 20 years. In classical Greece it was 28. In 19th century Britain it was 30 years and by the early 20th century it was 31. In 2010, life expectancy was 78 years.

Some would argue that our increased life expectancy is due to many factors, such as improved diet, sanitation, working conditions, etc. - and they would be entirely right - but a lot of it has to due with our increased understanding of disease and medicine, including the discovery and development of antibiotics and vaccines. These things are not produced naturally, but are the result of science. They have saved countless lives and have contributed to our quality of life.

That's not to say that "natural" has no value. Many of our modern pharmaceuticals have botanical bases, that have been proven to work and, I'm sure, there are a great many plants out there that have value that has yet to be quantified by science. But I do believe that - if one is going to claim that something "cures" or works against a disease/disease recurrence - then one must provide scientific proof. Anecdote isn't enough, nor can it be confirmed, tested, verified, corroborated or held accountable. Some would argue that the very nature of alternative medicine means that it can never be quantified. I would argue that anything can be quantified. It's not the quantification that's at the heart of the issue; it's the outcome. Does it work? Doesn't it work? That's what we need to focus on.

Bringing integrative/naturopathic medicine into mainstream institutions is a two-edged sword. The down-side is, it gives an aura of authenticity and acceptance to something that really hasn't been proven yet, but it also brings integrative/naturopathic medicine under the umbrella of conventional medicine which is regulated and does operate under strict standard-of-care policies, protocols and accountability. Some of that will, I hope, rub off on integrative/naturopathic medicine and then we will be able to see more clearly the value (or not) of it. Its outcomes will be documented in such institutions, which will be the ultimate proof of whether- or not it works, and will define whether- or not it has a role to play in treating disease, and what that role will be. Because we really do need to find out. Medicine as a whole can only benefit from the discovery of new treatments.

There is only one thing to be trusted...evidence. That's all there is. Belief doesn't cut it. Science has basic rules and procedures, perhaps imperfect, but that doesn't mean we have to then resort to magic. If a claim is made, then evidence must be provided and it has to be good evidence, not the usual anecdotal accounts. It is all we really have because if we accept any claims, then all claims can then be considered true just because someone believes they are. There is the placebo effect AND the nocebo effect.

there's flawed, fraud, conflict (s) of interest, ignorance (not enough knowledge yet as with early birth controll pills), and even evil intent

Lily, I believe that is probably the case, but as Deb pointed out, at least there is actual oversight. Also, science is not the same as drug companies. There is certainly overlap, in clinical trials, for example, and also in drug development, but if you have hard science that XYZ works, then it still works even if some drug company does something wrong in the process of bringing it to market.

Personally, I do not have a problem with the concept of integrative medicine. At the lowest level it is concerned with making patients more comfortable, physically and psychologically. This is a good thing. I also think it can help in another way. A lot of people take supplements, especially cancer patients. An integrative doc is more likely to be told of such supplement use and therefore be able to counsel the patient with authority that will be accepted on what is safe and/or helpful and what is not. Lastly, the integrative medicine movement does seem to be leading to some more studies of and openess to approaches outside the strict mainstream.

As one example, the study of exercise as part of cancer treatment started with exercise as an "integrative" approach that was thought to increase psychological wellbeing and possibly ease fatigue. Studies followed to quantify and verify the assumption.This lead to further interest in exercise and cancer, more studies etc. and we now know that exercise does more than just ease fatigue.

Wow L&W, that was an amazing analogy and I'm going to stick that tool into my "backpack." I hope all is going well.

L&W, I love your post also.

light - you rock!!

Tamoxifen gave me bad edema. I ran out of options.....I am glad there's alt forum that ppl share. I don't have luxury to wait for scientific proof.

Hi June. Has everything resolved since stopping the tamoxifen? Hope you're doing ok.

leggo - saw my BS last week and she insisted i stop my ovaries....and i'll be talking to my MO somewhere in june. so we'll know more. i am hesitate to chop off my ovaries or try another hormone blocker. i am only 43 not menopausal yet biologically. after i exercise regularly i don't even have hot flashes anymore even when i was on tamoxifen.

Hi Leggo, thanks. Hope all is well with you.

June, It is a hard decision, I know. Hope you're okay. Send a PM if you want to talk.

Well here's how I feel about science based medicine. As you all know, we have the scientific method where you develop a hypothesis and you need to have an independent variable and a dependent variable and you can basically only test one thing at a time and if you don't, you have no idea what worked. Now, I get why this is necessary, but it's so damn slow! It's like they have a huge barn in front of them and they're throwing darts and each one of those dart holes represents a study. It will be forever before we have anything resembling a complete picture of what's going on. Even after a study is done, the results are often confusing b/c it maybe doesn't fit with a prior study that was done. I mean, look at what a hard time they're having just figuring out whether eggs or coffee is good for you! And flax and soy--should I or shouldn't I?

Alt meds on the other hand is often based off of centuries old trial and error--some of these healing methods are over 2000 years old! And now, b/c we have the scientific method, we arrogantly toss out the knowledge of the ancients. Go figure. And for anyone who is doing mostly holistic, as you know we toss everything at it that we think will help but when we're cured we won't really know exactly what did it. I'm fine with that kind of uncertainty, but I've learned that I live in a very small group.