alek0

How about chinese medicine? In China it is often practiced together with conventional, and there are scientific studies of its effects.

I don't know much about herbals for liver problems, but I don't understand negative attiotudes on this board on any kind of alternative remedies. Sure, herbs can be dangerous. But since we all agree that they can be dangerous, why it is so difficult for some to accept that they can have good effects, too? Sure, if someone just beleives the propaganda without checking anything that's stupid. But on the other hand, I don't see anything wrong with taking responsibility for ourselves and investigating all possibilities. With conventional medicine, there are also risks and side effects and contradictory studies. Before taking a medication prescribed by my doctor, I also read whatever I can find on it.

What I would like to point out is that conventional medicine gives very few alternatives for chronic conditions. While side effects of medications can be acceptable for a short period of time, imagine being on smth. with nasty side effects for years. For example, there is no cure for endometriosis. Even a complete hysterectomy is not a complete guarantee that pain will stop. Not to mention that hyst. at age 30 doesn't seem such a bright idea to me (HRT and its side effects, osteoporosis risk if no HRT etc.). On the other hand, with restrictive diet and vit. and herbal supplements (mainly vitamin B complex, magnesium and evening primrose oil) I can be pain free. Diet is admittedly difficult to follow when I don't have time to prepare my lunch box (but on campus there isn't much choice for vegeterians anyway), but it is free of side-effects and it works. Admittedly, it is expensive (i.e. eating strictly organic fruit and vegetables) but it is worth it. I would certainly wellcome more studies on herbals, it would make the job on investigating possible consequences easier. However, those studies wouldn't be worth much if the researchers show such negative bias as frequently seen on this board.

MadKally

Alex0, who is going to pay for all these studies. I agree more studies should be done. But.... money and interest?

Wow, and you're going to keep taking it? It said at the bottom of your link, after a whole bunch of medical claims:

*This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.

I am concerned about people who buy these dangerous things. Who knows what each dosage really is? I am not looking for an argument. Too much Vitamin B6 can cause permanent pheripheral nerve damage. Too much A&E can be toxic. I had 4 years of pharmacology at an American university. I have said everything I wanted to say. Carry on and most of all, GOOD LUCK!

Kally

P.S. repoman, I'm glad you didn't actually puke. (just almost) lol Please be careful. I have been trained to help people. I am a part of the US medical establishment. Our health care would be great if we didn't have to constantly worry about how to pay for it... Many people can't pay for medical care or prescription coverage. They just die or lose everything they have ever owned includng their life savings and homes. It's great for the wealthy or the few people left with decent medical insurance. But the key phrase for you is FDA OR STAY AWAY!

Why roll the dice? Ok, now I'm really gone.

Dr Rick

Are you claiming that scientific studies show that your diet "can make you pain free," or are you asserting that you are pain free and attributing as much to your diet?

If it's the former, would you please provide the "scientific studies."?

Please present those studies worth much from those researchers without the negative bias as frequently seen on this board.

Thanks.

Rick

scigirl

Here's my take on the situation:

Modern medicine, with all its benefits and pitfalls, has a certain method involved in drug discovery. Basic scientists discover something about how a cell or an organ works, then a company uses that knowledge to create a specific drug to either enhance or inhibit a function. Not counting the basic science, over 100 million dollars is spent on clinical trials for each and every drug - to make sure the side effects aren't deadly in men, women and children, then to make sure that the drug actually does what the company claims it does. If they find out that the drug actually does something even cooler from the study, then the company has to spend another perhaps 50 million dollars proving it before they can put the new function on their label or in their drug ad. They also have to spend a lot of money purifying and refining the drug so that when you take 250 mg of ibuprofin, then yes indeed you are taking 250 mg of ibuprofin. Then - doctors who prescribe the drugs are required to provide their patients with any side effects (which we KNOW because we did the studies) - if they don't it's non-disclosure and it's unethical.

Why all this rigamorole- well it's the ethical thing to do clearly, but it's also required by law.

Alternative medicines, however, because they are classified by the FDA as a food and not a drug, can do whatever they damn well please. They can sell sugar pills and claim they can cure cancer, as long as they have that little asterisk somewhere (**This statement has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.)

I've heard people cursing pharmaceutical companies up one side and down the other for their immoral behaviors and overpriced medications. And some of the cursing they deserve. But not nearly enough as the snake oil vendors who prey on America's distrust for drugs, and on their desparation.

I really wish there was no such thing as these silly terms like 'conventional' and 'alternative' remedies. I'm not against herbs because they are herbs. I am convinced that some of them do work - let's just do the studies and manufacture them according to the drug standards in the FDA, not the food standards. What angers me is the fact that drug companies are held accountable to the tune of 100 million dollars for every statement they make, yet alternative medicines are not held to any standard at all for making the exact same claims. I want to see the data too - but I also want to see some corporate responsibility for those promising to cure any condition - alternative or conventional.

/soapbox

scigirl

alek0

Dr. Rick,

here are some examples of studies showing that endometriosis is related to exposure to environmental contaminants (hence organic produce should be consumed) and influence of diet.

TITLE: Environmental contaminants and dietary factors in endometriosis.
AUTHOR: Foster,-W-G; Agarwal,-S-K
SOURCE: Ann-N-Y-Acad-Sci. 2002 Mar; 955: 213-29; discussion 230-2, 396-406.
JOURNAL NAME: Annals-of-the-New-York-Academy-of-Sciences;
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SERIAL NUMBER: 0077-8923
LANGUAGE: English
MAIN ABSTRACT: Endometriosis is an estrogen-dependent disease characterized by the presence of endometrial glands and stroma outside the uterine cavity. The etiology of this disease remains elusive, but is clearly influenced by genetic, immune, and endocrine factors. Exposure to environmental contaminants has recently been added to the list of potential factors that contribute to the pathogenesis of endometriosis. The objective of this paper is to review the weight of the evidence from hospital-based case-control studies and animal experiments for an association between exposure to environmental contaminants and endometriosis.

TITLE: Relation of endometriosis and neuromuscular disease of the gastrointestinal tract: new insights.
AUTHOR: Mathias,-J-R; Franklin,-R; Quast,-D-C; Fraga,-N; Loftin,-C-A; Yates,-L; Harrison,-V
SOURCE: Fertil-Steril. 1998 Jul; 70(1): 81-8.
Full Text: Journals@OVID Science Direct (tm)
JOURNAL NAME: Fertility-and-sterility;
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD SERIAL NUMBER: 0015-0282
LANGUAGE: English
MAIN ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE: To investigate the neuromuscular activity of the gastrointestinal tract by antroduodenal manometry in women with endometriosis documented by laparoscopy, to assess the effects of diet and drug therapy on symptoms, and to assess the bacterial overgrowth that is commonly associated with these nerve diseases. DESIGN: Prospective, open-label study. SETTING: A clinical center for the care of women's health. PATIENT(S): Fifty women with endometriosis documented by laparoscopy and gastrointestinal tract symptoms characterized by chronic abdominal pain, nausea, vomiting, early satiety, bloating and distention, and altered bowel habits. INTERVENTION(S): Motility of the gastrointestinal tract was recorded and bacterial overgrowth was assessed. Treatment consisted of dietary changes, including reduction of glycemic carbohydrates, balancing with omega 9 oils, elimination of foods with caffeine and tyramine, and addition of omega 3 fatty acids, as well as drug therapy with clonazepam (0.25 mg 3 times per day). RESULT(S): All 50 women showed a characteristic motility change (ampulla of Vater-duodenal wall spasm, a seizure equivalent of the enteric nervous system). Forty of the women showed bacterial overgrowth. There was a significant reduction in the total symptom score after 8 weeks of treatment. CONCLUSION(S): This study suggests that endometriosis and gastrointestinal tract symptoms are a result of the dysfunction of hollow organs. Correction of the biochemical imbalance of the eicosanoid system and the hypersecretion of insulin that results from excessive intake of glycemic carbohydrates and lack of essential fatty acids significantly decreases symptoms in patients with endometriosis and associated neuromuscular disease of the gastrointestinal tract.

Could you provide any studies on conventional teratments which could produce same results while being free of side effects? Thanks.

Scigirl,

I agree that there should be better standards for alternative remedies. But I also think that there should be better standards on studies of conventional drugs (which is obvious from comparing studies funded by phrmaceutical companies and does which weren't). And much improvement in informed consent. Majority of MDs tend to downplay risks and side effects of medications and medical procedures, and IMO that is unethical.
For example, my GP told me that laparoscopy has no risks, dermatologist failed to warn me of dangers of prolonged use of steroids for eczema, etc. I still don't see anything wrong in taking responsibility for ourselves - I search the data on something, I decide to take the risk, and if anything goes wrong I have no one to blame but myself. I would certainly like to see more data available, but in the end it is up to me to make a decision.

Doubting Didymus

Perhaps we need bigger warnings on the bottletops, a-la cigarette packets. The "Has not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration." thing is not quite strong enough.

I propose:

"This product is not known to have any effect whatsoever."

"Warning: smoking causes cancer. This shit wont help you either: its only sugar."

"Newsflash: medical consensus is that water can not remember the prescence of duck liver. The stuff in this bottle comes out of a tap."

"May or may not contain magical powers, ancient herbal mixtures known only to reclusive monks, or a big blue genie voiced by Robin Williams."

Forgive the irreverence, but I'm with scigirl here. Lots of these things work, but there are a lot of them that are known NOT to work, and those are the ones that I have problems with. They just shouldn't be allowed to be sold. The things that are not known about conclusively, or are known to have an effect LESS than what is claimed on the bottle, should be cracked down on and exposed. People deserve to know what actual tests reveal about the product they are taking.

scigirl

Agreed - I wish we could find cheaper ways though. Drugs are already so expensive!

About the informed consent - agreed again! Perhaps Dr Rick could elaborate on what the 'standard' is. It can be tricky though - there is always a risk of dramatic side effects- even death - from the most innocuous drugs like, say, aspirin. If the risk of death is 1 in 100,000 do you tell the patient? What if they don't take the aspirin then die of a blood clot?

Anyway - I'm not trying to argue with ya, really - just pointing out some of the issues that I've been learning about in my medical ethics class. My view is - there is no such thing as too much information.

scigirl

MadKally

Warning! This product may harm or kill you. We don't have a clue exactly what the ingredients are, or what dosage it might be!

alek0

I think the patients should be told and it should be up to the patient to evaluate risk vs. benefit. I think it would be better for patients and better for medical professionals as well, because after all if it is a pateint who is making the decision there is no basis for lawsuits provided that information given is correct.
Patients know which side effects would be acceptable to them and which wouldn't. They know their own and their family medical history a lot better than a GP whom they see for less than a five minute visit and hence can evaluate risks better (for example, Glaxo's nasal spray for allergy has glaucoma listed as a rare side effects, and it seems reasonable that patients with family history of glaucoma may want to avoid that one).

For the record, I am not anti-medicine. I am, however, strongly in favour of truly informed consent especially after a number of medical errors and misinformations which happened to me. I always do research on whatever I am taking, whether it is an alternative remedy or a medication prescribed by my doctor. I take responsibility for decisions I make and will not blame anybody else if things go wrong. Can anyone tell me what is wrong with that approach?

MadKally

If a doctor told the patient every possible side effect, including the rare ones, No one would be taking anything. Most of the time the patients don't understand the medical jargon anyway.

Why do you think most of the time when you get a prescription, that little fold up paper is missing. It shows the molecular structure and so many other things that I think the patient shouldn't see it. It will only scare the laypeople and maybe even cause psychosomatic (Somatoform disorders)