S/O Essential Oils Article that might be of interest

[Χά�ων]

I found this an interesting take on how some areas of pseudoscience are accepted while others are shunned. As the mother of a VERY sick child who is still alive (multiple times over TYVM) thanks in whole to western medicine, including the dreaded chemo, I appreciate this look at and comparison of different pseudosciences and how some are accepted while others are wholly rejected.

 

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/02/23/whole-foods-america-s-temple-of-pseudoscience.html

 

 

[WishboneDawn]

I read that yesterday. I get James Randi's Facebook feed and he featured it. Great article.

[msrift]

Very interesting article. It summarized many feelings I'd been trying to articulate recently. I especially like the ending quote: "It’s that whenever we talk about science and society, it helps to keep two rather humbling premises in mind: very few of us are anywhere near rational. And pretty much all of us are hypocrites." Thanks for sharing!

[kewb]

It is interesting. 

[Dicentra]

Thanks for the article share, Queen Goddess!  I've been thinking more about this topic and the topic of pseudoscience generally since I posted in the other essential oils thread.  I have some thoughts but I need to prep for classes tomorrow so I'll have to come back later.  Just wanted to say thanks for the link.

[Slartibartfast]

So, why do many of us perceive Whole Foods and the Creation Museum so differently?

 

I was wondering that earlier. :lol:

 

FWIW I like Dr Bronner's soap because I have issues with artificial fragrances, not because I believe it is magic. I buy a lot of things at Whole Foods because I have a food allergy.

 

I do like essential oils, I like things that smell nice and I have bought some from WF.

 

I like the store, but I don't buy their woowoo magic items.

[Lady Florida.]

I reject pseudoscience, including that pushed by Whole Foods, anti-GMO folks, anti-vaxers and other such stuff. 

[NASDAQ]

See, I find them equally kind of crazy.

[NASDAQ]

To elaborate: I think the difference for those of us in urban, Whole-Foods-y areas, is that we're very unlikely to interact socially with Ken Ham-style creationists. And yet it seems every third person does Reiki, or homeopathy, or crystals, or rejects vaccines, or some other type of woo. And social interaction does demand a certain amount of politeness. It's a lot easier to be snarky and dismissive when it isn't, say, your mother-in-law.

 

I'm reasonably sure I don't know a single 7-day-creationist in my day-to-day life. But every second or third person I meet is on some kind of special health diet.

[alef]

I think we all tend to overrate our own rationality :)

[PinkyandtheBrains.]

I like the term woo.

[Χά�ων]

To elaborate: I think the difference for those of us in urban, Whole-Foods-y areas, is that we're very unlikely to interact socially with Ken Ham-style creationists. And yet it seems every third person does Reiki, or homeopathy, or crystals, or rejects vaccines, or some other type of woo. And social interaction does demand a certain amount of politeness. It's a lot easier to be snarky and dismissive when it isn't, say, your mother-in-law.

 

I'm reasonably sure I don't know a single 7-day-creationist in my day-to-day life. But every second or third person I meet is on some kind of special health diet.

I actually interact with both Ken Ham creationists and those into diets or other type of woo (love that btw). Sometimes, but rarely, in the same day unless it us a Ken Ham style creationist, I do not know many but those I do know believe in or follow another type of woo. But then live in a very unique area and have very odd area.k

[Dicentra]

See - I've actually found that the YEC adherents that I know tend to be the same ones who are on the other alternative medicine/lifestyle bandwagons - coconut oil for everything, essential oils, anti-GMO, etc. which sounds different from what others have noticed.  At first, I thought it was odd - I expected the adherents of YEC and the adherents of alternative medicine/lifestyles to be polar opposite groups, as the article suggests.  Never the twain shall meet and all that. ;)  When I started realizing that the YEC adherents I know were embracing the Whole Foods kind of woo (I do like that ;)), it actually made more sense to me.  Both are based on pseudoscience so why believe in one and not the other?  I'm not saying I think it's a GOOD thing that folks are turning to pseudoscience but it does make logical sense to embrace all flavours of pseudoscience and not just pick and choose.  It does seem to be only one way, though - the YEC adherents I know are embracing the Whole Foods woo but the Whole Foods adherents I know do not seem to be embracing the YEC worldview.  To me, that's the part that's most interesting to think on - why one way and not the other?

 

Gah - I want to say more but I have to head out to teach.  Darn it!

[Slartibartfast]

To elaborate: I think the difference for those of us in urban, Whole-Foods-y areas, is that we're very unlikely to interact socially with Ken Ham-style creationists. And yet it seems every third person does Reiki, or homeopathy, or crystals, or rejects vaccines, or some other type of woo. And social interaction does demand a certain amount of politeness. It's a lot easier to be snarky and dismissive when it isn't, say, your mother-in-law.

 

I'm reasonably sure I don't know a single 7-day-creationist in my day-to-day life. But every second or third person I meet is on some kind of special health diet.

 

 

It takes less than ten minutes to drive from my local Whole Foods to Bob Jones University. 

 

:lol:

[Cricket]

Here's an alternative remedy I've never heard of: http://metro.co.uk/2014/01/22/dont-sniff-at-this-cure-baker-told-to-blow-balloons-to-treat-boils-can-inflate-tyres-in-20mins-using-his-nose-4273773/

 

And I don't know how many YECers would be in China. ;-)

[Liz CA]

This whole subject just serves IMHO to point out that we are all responsible for ourselves and our minor children. If someone says Oil of Oregano cured them of lyme disease, good for them. If it works for me, good for me, and if it does not I may have to seek other methods.

Perhaps some are rather either or on the whole issue but I like to be able to choose what I try for what ailment/condition. If I break my foot, I am pretty sure megadoses of Vitamin C are not going to set it straight but if I have digestive issues, I may try food prepared a certain way before I swallow a bottle of pills.

 

All this to say, some things that may have been called pseudoscience may actually have had a positive effect for someone, it does not mean my body will react to it the same way but if I want to I can try it. IMHO, the same is true for so-called Western meds. Comes down to individual decisions.

 

Quoted from the article: So, why do many of us perceive Whole Foods and the Creation Museum so differently?

Because they really cannot be compared?? I happen to believe in Creationism and still choose organically grown veggies....

[Lady Florida.]

 

 

All this to say, some things that may have been called pseudoscience may actually have had a positive effect for someone,

 

This is called subjective validation and is quite common in pseudoscience.

[Liz CA]

This is called subjective validation and is quite common in pseudoscience.

 

And would subjective validation be okay for you if it cured your arthritis? I'd be okay with whatever label as long as I feel better. What I mean to say is many things have been labelled scientific and pseudoscientific but perhaps they are neither.

[Lady Florida.]

And would subjective validation be okay for you if it cured your arthritis? I'd be okay with whatever label as long as I feel better. What I mean to say is many things have been labelled scientific and pseudoscientific but perhaps they are neither.

 

No it wouldn't because correlation does not equal causation. Just because B happened after A doesn't mean A caused B. This is one of the things that separate science from pseudoscience, and is an important aspect of critical thinking.

[Liz CA]

No it wouldn't because correlation does not equal causation. Just because B happened after A doesn't mean A caused B. This is one of the things that separate science from pseudoscience, and is an important aspect of critical thinking.

 

Yes, I completeley agree on the correlation / causation, however, if I was ill and something made me feel better I would take it even if most Medical Doctors would laugh at it. When we are talking about individual health, our bodies are different even though we have the same basic organs / skeletal structure / neurological makeup, yet for some reason not all meds or herbs work in the same way for everyone.

[NASDAQ]

 

 

All this to say, some things that may have been called pseudoscience may actually have had a positive effect for someone, it does not mean my body will react to it the same way but if I want to I can try it. IMHO, the same is true for so-called Western meds. Comes down to individual decisions.

 

 

 

This is an excellent description of pseudo-science. It is not at all how conventional medicine works though. Conventional medicine is constantly refined through large double-blind trials -- not "whatever seems to work, let's just go with that."

 

We did the "let's go with what seems to work" for all of human history up until the past hundred years, give or take. It didn't get us very far. It's not a good way to make decisions, or to evaluate risk.

[Liz CA]

 

All this to say, some things that may have been called pseudoscience may actually have had a positive effect for someone, it does not mean my body will react to it the same way but if I want to I can try it. IMHO, the same is true for so-called Western meds. Comes down to individual decisions.

 

 

 

This is an excellent description of pseudo-science. It is not at all how conventional medicine works though. Conventional medicine is constantly refined through large double-blind trials -- not "whatever seems to work, let's just go with that."

 

We did the "let's go with what seems to work" for all of human history up until the past hundred years, give or take. It didn't get us very far. It's not a good way to make decisions, or to evaluate risk.

 

 

I suppose I am not arguing how scientific decisions are being made; I am just pointing out that I can understand that some people buy the enzymes at Whole Foods (or whatever) because they have actually experienced relief from their symptoms. Comes back to individual decision making regarding their health.

[goldberry]

All this to say, some things that may have been called pseudoscience may actually have had a positive effect for someone, it does not mean my body will react to it the same way but if I want to I can try it. IMHO, the same is true for so-called Western meds.

 

Liz, I totally agree with all your posts.  

 

How many times even with traditional medicine does a doctor have to try different ones before they find one that works for that particular patient?  This is very often the case, with a few exceptions where it is very clear what is needed (insulin for a diabetic, for example.) 

 

I don't discount that something helped someone - although that doesn't mean I jump on a bandwagon and think it is a cure-all for everyone or even myself.  We know so much less than we think we do about the world and then human body, it's a little arrogant to say, "This did not help them, because right now we don't understand how it could help them."

 

And yes, if something DID help me, I would still take it whether or not it anyone was able to explain why.  I would just be happy I was helped.

[NASDAQ]

I suppose I am not arguing how scientific decisions are being made; I am just pointing out that I can understand that some people buy the enzymes at Whole Foods (or whatever) because they have actually experienced relief from their symptoms. Comes back to individual decision making regarding their health.

 

It's not good decision making, is the point. People can waste their money if they want to. People can believe in cavemen who lived with dinosaurs if they want to, too. But it's flawed decision making .

[nevergiveup]

Belief in anything often arises from some problem not having been resolved in a traditional manner.

 

Never underestimate the power of the human mind.

[Cricket]

It's not good decision making, is the point. People can waste their money if they want to. People can believe in cavemen who lived with dinosaurs if they want to, too. But it's flawed decision making .

How is it flawed decision making to do something that works? Just because science or modern medicine can't explain something doesn't mean it doesn't work. I'm in the middle on alternative treatments. I've had several experiences with traditional doctors where they ignored a real medical issue--told me it was in my head, got upset with me for wasting their time, one doctor rolled his eyes at me even after I explained I had lost a third of my body weight in less than a year when my food intake had gone up (in my case it was celiac, over 20 years ago before it was widely known) and another time doctors tried to treat my allergic reaction to a food with Valium and antidepressants (again, before food allergies became well-known). Traditional doctors can't explain everything and, at least in my case, were playing catch up to the "quacks." When dd1 was a baby, she had asthma attacks. After twelve hours of breathing treatments (albuterol and steroids), I couldn't see much difference in her breathing. Within minutes of trying a homeopathic remedy, I could see her pale face turn pink again and her breathing deepen. That could have been a coincidence, I don't know. I was just glad to see her a normal color.

 

I started seeing alternative doctors because traditional doctors ignored my problems, telling me it was all in my head. I don't reject western medicine. I'm very thankful for it! But it has limitations. If someone doesn't want to try an alternative treatment because there is no study to back it up, fine, but I didn't need a medical study to tell me to not eat gluten. I knew that I was symptom-free after quitting all gluten. It was a health food "nut" that suggested gluten might be my problem. Now science is agreeing with what many people already knew. People need to try new things so we make more discoveries. :-)

[kewb]

I have been giving this article a lot of thought.  I did find it interesting, as I stated earlier.  I think what it comes down to for me is that I do not believe modern medicine has all the answers.  I am grateful for the things it does know.  Insulin, chemo, antibiotics, etc.

Having been navigating the labrynth of lyme deniers vs. lyme does exist I have interacted with all kinds of doctors.  All of this experience has reminded me that science does not know everything.  We learn new things all the time.  Before Aids had a name people were dieing from something but no one knew what.  Science had to catch up.  What is pseudoscience today may become fact tomorrow.  What is fact today will become false tomorrow. That is evolving knowledge.

[Lady Florida.]

It's not good decision making, is the point. People can waste their money if they want to. People can believe in cavemen who lived with dinosaurs if they want to, too. But it's flawed decision making .

 

I haven't had a chance to get back to this thread, but NASDAQ's last several posts said everything i would have said, only better. 

[NASDAQ]

How is it flawed decision making to do something that works? Just because science or modern medicine can't explain something doesn't mean it doesn't work. I'm in the middle on alternative treatments. I've had several experiences with traditional doctors where they ignored a real medical issue--told me it was in my head, got upset with me for wasting their time, one doctor rolled his eyes at me even after I explained I had lost a third of my body weight in less than a year when my food intake had gone up (in my case it was celiac, over 20 years ago before it was widely known) and another time doctors tried to treat my allergic reaction to a food with Valium and antidepressants (again, before food allergies became well-known). Traditional doctors can't explain everything and, at least in my case, were playing catch up to the "quacks." When dd1 was a baby, she had asthma attacks. After twelve hours of breathing treatments (albuterol and steroids), I couldn't see much difference in her breathing. Within minutes of trying a homeopathic remedy, I could see her pale face turn pink again and her breathing deepen. That could have been a coincidence, I don't know. I was just glad to see her a normal color.

 

I started seeing alternative doctors because traditional doctors ignored my problems, telling me it was all in my head. I don't reject western medicine. I'm very thankful for it! But it has limitations. If someone doesn't want to try an alternative treatment because there is no study to back it up, fine, but I didn't need a medical study to tell me to not eat gluten. I knew that I was symptom-free after quitting all gluten. It was a health food "nut" that suggested gluten might be my problem. Now science is agreeing with what many people already knew. People need to try new things so we make more discoveries. :-)

Do you really, truly believe that your daughter's asthma was cured by water?

[Liz CA]

It's not good decision making, is the point. People can waste their money if they want to. People can believe in cavemen who lived with dinosaurs if they want to, too. But it's flawed decision making .

 

 

I have a feeling we are debating on different subjects. I am talking about persoal decisions and individual results.

 

Are you saying you would not continue taking a supplement if you have experienced relief for your symptoms or are you saying it is not likely you would ever be tempted to try supps instead of Rx and you would therefore never find out if it could have helped?

[Cricket]

Do you really, truly believe that your daughter's asthma was cured by water?

 

Really?  That's what you got out of my post?  I didn't claim my dd's asthma was cured by water.  For every asthma attack after that, I used albuterol and inhaled steroids like the doctor said.  They worked.  The time I used a homeopathic remedy, I know what I saw.  I don't tell people to use homeopathics and forget what the doctors say.  That would be ridiculous.  When my kids have problems beyond normal things like colds, we see a doctor.  That same dd needed surgery at age 4 to correct an issue.  I didn't turn to herbs to fix that. 

 

My point was that western medicine doesn't know everything.  It doesn't even claim to know everything so it's surprising to me that lay people act like it does make that claim.  Things can happen whether we have the ability to explain it or not.  Isn't that the whole idea behind science?  That something can be learned and eventually explained?  I thought scientists were supposed to be open-minded in the sense that we can explore and learn the world.  Sometimes alternative treatments turn out to be proven valid through science, sometimes not.  Sometimes old-wives-tales and home remedies turn out to have validity.  To say that something is automatically false until proved through the scientific method is silly.  And it seems to be what people seem to be saying when it comes to alternative treatments. 

[Lady Florida.]

 Isn't that the whole idea behind science?  That something can be learned and eventually explained? 

 

Not the whole point, but a very important one yes. Things can be learned and explained by careful observation, by controlled tests, by double blind studies, by repeatable tests, by peer review. Not by, it worked for me therefore it works.

[Dicentra]

I absolutely agree with those who are saying that science doesn't know everything - if anyone ever tells you that it does, you can call them a damned liar. ;)

 

My problem with alternative medicine is not that it doesn't help people feel better some of the time - I'm sure the placebo effect comes into play and, as I mentioned on the other essential oils thread, there are complex biochemical compounds in all kinds of places that can have a biochemical effect in the body.  Chemistry and biochemistry have definitely not studied every compound there is nor all the biochemical interactions between every compound, either in-vitro or in-vivo.  My concern is with the method that's used to study alternative types of medicine.  The reason that it takes a drug in Western medicine up to 20 years to come to market is because it has to go through many, many tightly controlled double-blind, and sometimes triple-blind, studies with as few other variables as possible to make sure the the effect (or non-effect) that's observed could not come from anything else other than that drug.  A few posters have said that the alternative remedies have made them feel better and I'm not saying that they didn't.  The problem comes when the company tries to market that remedy.  Because all they have is anecdotal evidence and the remedy hasn't been studied under tightly controlled conditions, all the company knows is that x number of people feel better - they don't know that it was the actual remedy and the remedy alone that did the trick.  Maybe for a few of the people, it was just coincidence that they felt better.  Maybe for a few others, it was the placebo effect.  Maybe for a few others, they were taking another remedy that interacted with the first one and that's what caused them to feel better but they never made the connection or reported it in their testimonial.  Can you see the problem?  If the company now tries to market their remedy as "Cures XYZ!", they would be lying.  They don't know that it was actually their remedy that made those people feel better.  I realize in Western medicine drug testing, you can't always control every variable (we are talking about humans here and we're all unique) but they certainly do the best they can to minimize variability so that if they see an improvement, they are better able to say that the improvement was due to the drug and not something else.  That's the scientific method.  I'm absolutely not saying that a remedy doesn't help someone feel better unless it's been studied using the scienctific method but the problem is you don't really know it was that remedy.

 

Folks might be now saying that they don't care if it was actually the remedy that worked as long as they felt better.  Fair enough but the one of the other parts of the 20 years it takes to bring a drug to market is testing for side effects.  Even after a drug is brought to market, it's still monitored for long-term side effects.  None of the alternative remedies I know of do that kind of monitoring for side effects.  What if that alternative remedy you took makes you feel better now but damages your liver in the long run?  What if the alternative remedy seems to help by alleviating a symptom (let's say pain) but doesn't deal with the underlying cause of the pain and because you've self-medicated with the alternative remedy, the underlying caused remains undiagnosed and damages your health in the long run?

 

What I'm getting at was partly echoed by another poster - if you're an adult, you should be able to make decisions about your own health.  What I want people to realize is that unless you are the kind of person who looks at ALL angles through the lens of the scientific method and is willing to do a LOT of extra research on an alternative remedy from many, many different sources (not just one slant) and can evaluate whether those studies are valid or not, then you are gambling with your own health in ways you may not realize.  Please understand me - I look at Western medicine through the same lens!  Western medicine has made many mistakes and been wrong many times but I can look at those Western medicine studies and have all the info I need to determine whether they are valid or not.  Unless alternative medicine is willing to subject its remedies to tightly controlled double-blind studies, I can't get the info I need to make a decision on validity so I have no choice but to dismiss the remedies.

[Susan in TN]

Do you really, truly believe that your daughter's asthma was cured by water?

Out of curiosity, what are you assuming she used? From your comment it sounds like you are thinking she used a homeopathic tincture,which is just water, maybe with a little sugar. But alternative medicine can include everything from homeopathic tinctures to the use of food/diet, vitamins and minerals, exercise, chiropractic care, yoga, natural oils, etc.

 

Just wondering because she didn't specify, and while I don't subscribe to homeopathy, I don't discount every form of alternative treatment.

 

ETA: OK - now I see in her comment that she used a homeopathic remedy, which I'm assuming to mean a tincture. Need to read more carefully.

[Lady Florida.]

My concern is with the method that's used to study alternative types of medicine.  The reason that it takes a drug in Western medicine up to 20 years to come to market is because it has to go through many, many tightly controlled double-blind, and sometimes triple-blind, studies with as few other variables as possible to make sure the the effect (or non-effect) that's observed could not come from anything else other than that drug.  A few posters have said that the alternative remedies have made them feel better and I'm not saying that they didn't.  The problem comes when the company tries to market that remedy.  Because all they have is anecdotal evidence and the remedy hasn't been studied under tightly controlled conditions, <snip>

 

Folks might be now saying that they don't care if it was actually the remedy that worked as long as they felt better.  Fair enough but the one of the other parts of the 20 years it takes to bring a drug to market is testing for side effects.  Even after a drug is brought to market, it's still monitored for long-term side effects.  None of the alternative remedies I know of do that kind of monitoring for side effects.  What if that alternative remedy you took makes you feel better now but damages your liver in the long run?  What if the alternative remedy seems to help by alleviating a symptom (let's say pain) but doesn't deal with the underlying cause of the pain and because you've self-medicated with the alternative remedy, the underlying caused remains undiagnosed and damages your health in the long run?

 

 

 

People who embrace alternative medicine tend to see it as more personal than Western medicine, but it's not. It's a huge big business with lobbyists who make sure they don't have to test their remedies. This book includes the eye-opening of the history of our current alternative medicine industry (in the U.S.) They bullied their way on to store shelves without accountability.

[Cricket]

I absolutely agree with those who are saying that science doesn't know everything - if anyone ever tells you that it does, you can call them a damned liar. ;)

 

My problem with alternative medicine is not that it doesn't help people feel better some of the time - I'm sure the placebo effect comes into play and, as I mentioned on the other essential oils thread, there are complex biochemical compounds in all kinds of places that can have a biochemical effect in the body.  Chemistry and biochemistry have definitely not studied every compound there is nor all the biochemical interactions between every compound, either in-vitro or in-vivo.  My concern is with the method that's used to study alternative types of medicine.  The reason that it takes a drug in Western medicine up to 20 years to come to market is because it has to go through many, many tightly controlled double-blind, and sometimes triple-blind, studies with as few other variables as possible to make sure the the effect (or non-effect) that's observed could not come from anything else other than that drug.  A few posters have said that the alternative remedies have made them feel better and I'm not saying that they didn't.  The problem comes when the company tries to market that remedy.  Because all they have is anecdotal evidence and the remedy hasn't been studied under tightly controlled conditions, all the company knows is that x number of people feel better - they don't know that it was the actual remedy and the remedy alone that did the trick.  Maybe for a few of the people, it was just coincidence that they felt better.  Maybe for a few others, it was the placebo effect.  Maybe for a few others, they were taking another remedy that interacted with the first one and that's what caused them to feel better but they never made the connection or reported it in their testimonial.  Can you see the problem?  If the company now tries to market their remedy as "Cures XYZ!", they would be lying.  They don't know that it was actually their remedy that made those people feel better.  I realize in Western medicine drug testing, you can't always control every variable (we are talking about humans here and we're all unique) but they certainly do the best they can to minimize variability so that if they see an improvement, they are better able to say that the improvement was due to the drug and not something else.  That's the scientific method.  I'm absolutely not saying that a remedy doesn't help someone feel better unless it's been studied using the scienctific method but the problem is you don't really know it was that remedy.

 

Folks might be now saying that they don't care if it was actually the remedy that worked as long as they felt better.  Fair enough but the one of the other parts of the 20 years it takes to bring a drug to market is testing for side effects.  Even after a drug is brought to market, it's still monitored for long-term side effects.  None of the alternative remedies I know of do that kind of monitoring for side effects.  What if that alternative remedy you took makes you feel better now but damages your liver in the long run?  What if the alternative remedy seems to help by alleviating a symptom (let's say pain) but doesn't deal with the underlying cause of the pain and because you've self-medicated with the alternative remedy, the underlying caused remains undiagnosed and damages your health in the long run?

 

What I'm getting at was partly echoed by another poster - if you're an adult, you should be able to make decisions about your own health.  What I want people to realize is that unless you are the kind of person who looks at ALL angles through the lens of the scientific method and is willing to do a LOT of extra research on an alternative remedy from many, many different sources (not just one slant) and can evaluate whether those studies are valid or not, then you are gambling with your own health in ways you may not realize.  Please understand me - I look at Western medicine through the same lens!  Western medicine has made many mistakes and been wrong many times but I can look at those Western medicine studies and have all the info I need to determine whether they are valid or not.  Unless alternative medicine is willing to subject its remedies to tightly controlled double-blind studies, I can't get the info I need to make a decision on validity so I have no choice but to dismiss the remedies.

 

I actually agree with this!  I don't think having something work for someone means that a company should be able to market it as a cure unless they have scientific studies to back it up.  I cringe when I read about the latest "miracle."  But that doesn't mean things like essential oils should not be available for people who want them which it sounds like you agree with as well. 

 

As far as saying people don't care if it works as long as they feel better, some traditional medicine only masks symptoms rather than cures something (painkillers, decongestants, for example).  And I totally agree that just because something is natural doesn't mean it is safe with no side effects.

 

Out of curiosity, what are you assuming she used? From your comment it sounds like you are thinking she used a homeopathic tincture,which is just water, maybe with a little sugar. But alternative medicine can include everything from homeopathic tinctures to the use of food/diet, vitamins and minerals, exercise, chiropractic care, yoga, natural oils, etc.

 

Just wondering because she didn't specify, and while I don't subscribe to homeopathy, I don't discount every form of alternative treatment.

 

ETA: OK - now I see in her comment that she used a homeopathic remedy, which I'm assuming to mean a tincture. Need to read more carefully.

 

They were soft pellets that instantly dissolved when put into the mouth.

 

ETA:  I don't have a problem either with people pointing out that some alternative remedies don't have science to back them up.  That is a fact.  I guess what irks me sometimes is when people say that since there is no science to back them up, therefore there is no way they work.  Sometimes there isn't science to back up the claim because it hasn't been studied enough.  Maybe that is where the issue is.  Some people start from the stance of "I won't believe anything unless it is backed by science first" and some start with "unless science proves something wrong then I don't have a problem with trying traditional remedies."

[Dicentra]

People who embrace alternative medicine tend to see it as more personal than Western medicine, but it's not. It's a huge big business with lobbyists who make sure they don't have to test their remedies. This book includes the eye-opening of the history of our current alternative medicine industry (in the U.S.) They bullied their way on to store shelves without accountability.

 

Thanks for the book recommendation, Floridamom!  Looks interesting.

 

I actually agree with this!  I don't think having something work for someone means that a company should be able to market it as a cure unless they have scientific studies to back it up.  I cringe when I read about the latest "miracle."  But that doesn't mean things like essential oils should not be available for people who want them which it sounds like you agree with as well. 

 

As far as saying people don't care if it works as long as they feel better, some traditional medicine only masks symptoms rather than cures something (painkillers, decongestants, for example).  And I totally agree that just because something is natural doesn't mean it is safe with no side effects.

 

 

They were soft pellets that instantly dissolved when put into the mouth.

 

ETA:  I don't have a problem either with people pointing out that some alternative remedies don't have science to back them up.  That is a fact.  I guess what irks me sometimes is when people say that since there is no science to back them up, therefore there is no way they work.  Sometimes there isn't science to back up the claim because it hasn't been studied enough.  Maybe that is where the issue is.  Some people start from the stance of "I won't believe anything unless it is backed by science first" and some start with "unless science proves something wrong then I don't have a problem with trying traditional remedies."

 

Surprisingly (for the wife of a pharmacist ;)), I don't have any problem with people trying alternative remedies.  HOWEVER (a big however), I think the vast majority of people that are trying them and using them don't realize how much they are gambling with their health by not, at the very least, consulting with their pharmacist about any traditional medications they may be taking in combination with any alternative remedies they may be considering.  I have heard over and over again that "it's natural so it's safe".  AAAARRRRGGGGHHH!!!!  People also don't seem to realize that if they choose to cut their traditional pharmacist out of the picture, the possible detrimental interactions between the different alternative remedies and/or traditional medications that they are taking won't be caught by the pharmacist (who's job it is to catch those interactions).  Some alternative remedies DO have biochemically active ingredients and they ABSOLUTELY CAN have an effect on any traditional medication you may be taking!  (Sorry - don't mean to be virtually yelling.  I just get very, very worried for people sometimes.)  This is why I would have much less of a concern with the alternative medicine business (and it is a multi-billion dollar business) if it would subject its remedies to the same scrutiny, research, and labeling policies as Western medicines.  If the remedies were shown to be effective, they could be available at pharmacies only so that pharmacists would know what alternative remedies you were taking along with any other Western meds you were taking.  The fact that the purveyors of alternative remedies won't allow their products to undergo the same scrutiny as Western meds but still want to keep them on the shelves tells me that those companies care about the almighty dollar more than they care about the health of the people taking the remedies.  Ironically, that's what adherents of alternative remedies accuse Big Pharma of doing.  Funny, isn't it? ;)

 

And I do agree, Cricket, that many Western meds mask symptoms instead of curing the cause.  For me, the difference is that with Western meds, I know that that's what they are supposed to do so I know the root cause is still there.  My back is killing me right now and I know that Advil will take away some of the pain but isn't going to fix the root cause.  Advil isn't marketed as a cure for back injury. :)  With alternative medicines, I don't see that same kind of attention to detail.  Most purveyors of the remedies don't distinguish between treating the symptoms or treating the cause.  They just seem satisfied if the patient feels better regardless of whether it's a "band-aid" fix or if the main ailment is being treated.  They don't seem to bother informing the customer which is being treated - symptom or cause - mostly because I don't think they know (no tightly controlled studies, etc.).  I could be wrong on this, though - I haven't made a study of the packaging claims of tons of different alternative remedies. :)

[NASDAQ]

There's a difference between using something off-label and using something we've studied and know to be useless -- like homeopathy or mega-doses of vitamin c. Most common supplements were studied and found to be useless. The ones that have use, like folic acid, are recommended conventionally.

[Dicentra]

There's a difference between using something off-label and using something we've studied and know to be useless -- like homeopathy or mega-doses of vitamin c. Most common supplements were studied and found to be useless. The ones that have use, like folic acid, are recommended conventionally.

 

Absolutely.  This is why I want the alternative remedies to have to submit to the scrutiny of clinical research and trials.  I feel badly for the average person, though, because the media keeps taking a small study, blowing it out of proportion, and then taking another, this time contradictory, study and making it the next big thing.  Vitamin E was supposed to be the cure-all according to traditional (not even fringe) media a few years ago.  Now they're reporting that taking it has health risks.  I'm just not sure how the average person with little to no scientific literacy is supposed to make heads or tails of any of it.  In a way, I can't blame them for turning to alternative stuff.  All of it - Western and alternative - probably just seem like a big, confusing mess to most people.  Alternative purveyors have just been better at selling their stuff in layman's terms - I think Western medicine could take a page from that playbook. ;)

 

I don't know why the really fringe stuff like homeopathy still hangs on.  I have a theory that it has to do with people replacing their faith in a deity with faith in something else magical but I'd like to do more reading before I make a statement on that. :)

[NASDAQ]

I have a feeling we are debating on different subjects. I am talking about persoal decisions and individual results.

 

Are you saying you would not continue taking a supplement if you have experienced relief for your symptoms or are you saying it is not likely you would ever be tempted to try supps instead of Rx and you would therefore never find out if it could have helped?

I don't take supplements unless they're recommended to me for some reason (like folic acid or iron), so this is unlikely to come up.

 

This might be similar though. I used to take a medicine that was thought fairly safe during pregnancy. It turns out that large scale studies suggest that it isn't safe. I had four pregnancies, no issues. If I were going by "how this works for me," I'd keep taking it. But of course I stopped the medication. I tend to go more by research than how I personally feel.

 

Alternative remedies that have stayed alternative are of two types: the ones we haven't studied, and the ones that we know don't work. I'd avoid the first because I'm risk-adverse. I'd avoid the second because, really, life is busy and expensive enough.

[Liz CA]

I don't take supplements unless they're recommended to me for some reason (like folic acid or iron), so this is unlikely to come up.

 

This might be similar though. I used to take a medicine that was thought fairly safe during pregnancy. It turns out that large scale studies suggest that it isn't safe. I had four pregnancies, no issues. If I were going by "how this works for me," I'd keep taking it. But of course I stopped the medication. I tend to go more by research than how I personally feel.

 

Alternative remedies that have stayed alternative are of two types: the ones we haven't studied, and the ones that we know don't work. I'd avoid the first because I'm risk-adverse. I'd avoid the second because, really, life is busy and expensive enough.

 

This is interesting. It reminds me of my grandmother who, during WWII, had no access to a physician and had to rely on so-called folk remedies to bring my mother through some illness. It seems you are convinced that all so-called alternative methods are quackery - at least those that have not been adopted into mainstream Western medicine. I think there used to be a lot of things "mainstream" that fell out of mainstream when we had pharmaceutical companies get into the picture.

 

I can understand not wanting to take risks, I am not much of a risk taker with my health either. I am, though, willing to try a product my naturopath suggests to see if there is any noticeable effect. I trust her not to give me anything that could be harmful unless she explained it thoroughly and I consented.

 

I would not, however, summarily write off all supplements just because some other physician does not believe in it or has not yet learned anything about it.

 

[NASDAQ]

No, you missed my point entirely. I believe that untested supplements do something. I believe that no one knows what they do, because they haven't been studied in large numbers. And so I don't take them. In addition, I know that supplement makers are close-to unregulated, and so I don't know what I'm getting in that bottle. I also don't take off-label medication. I might if I were in a desperate situation, because then the risk might be worth it.

 

I believe that many popular "natural" treatments are both mostly harmless and utterly useless, but of course none of us would use those ones because we practice evidence-based decision making.

[Lady Florida.]

While this thread tuned into alternative medicine vs. mainstream medicine, the point of the article that QueenGoddess posted is still a good one. Many people who will quickly point and laugh at one person's pseudoscience will staunchly defend their own pseudoscience beliefs. 

[Dicentra]

While this thread tuned into alternative medicine vs. mainstream medicine, the point of the article that QueenGoddess posted is still a good one. Many people who will quickly point and laugh at one person's pseudoscience will staunchly defend their own pseudoscience beliefs. 

 

You're right, floridamom.  It is an interesting point.  My apologies - I think I helped to steer the thread off course. :)

 

So why do we think this is?  As I mentioned in an earlier post, some of the YEC adherents that I know are also into many of the Whole Foods kind of pseudoscience.  As I said earlier, that actually makes more sense to me - accept all flavours of pseudoscience and not just pick and choose.  I do know some Whole Foods lifestyle adherents as well and they are arrogantly dismissive of a YEC worldview.  I know one young lady who goes to a psychic on a regular basis but is an atheist.  Of course I also know many people who dismiss all kinds of pseudoscience. :)

 

So why do some people feel that it's valid to pick and choose among the varying branches of pseudoscience?

[Rosie_0801]

 

So why do some people feel that it's valid to pick and choose among the varying branches of pseudoscience?

 

Why wouldn't they? No one can believe in everything any more than they can believe in nothing.

[Lady Florida.]

You're right, floridamom.  It is an interesting point.  My apologies - I think I helped to steer the thread off course. :)

 

 

 

No apologies necessary. I do think it's an interesting question though. I don't know any YEC folks personally. I know people on the right and left side of the political spectrum and all levels in between. My Libertarian friend is the one who's most into Whole Foods style pseudoscience. I don't know if political beliefs color beliefs in pseudoscience, but I do see it in many of my left-leaning friends. I also see it in friends and family from mainstream Christian to culturally Jewish to New Age to hardcore atheist. I think the ones I find hardest to accept are my fellow atheists. It just seems odd to me that they consider themselves such rational thinkers when it comes to any kind of deity, but will easily jump on the anti-science bandwagon.

[Liz CA]

You're right, floridamom.  It is an interesting point.  My apologies - I think I helped to steer the thread off course. :)

 

So why do we think this is?  As I mentioned in an earlier post, some of the YEC adherents that I know are also into many of the Whole Foods kind of pseudoscience.  As I said earlier, that actually makes more sense to me - accept all flavours of pseudoscience and not just pick and choose.  I do know some Whole Foods lifestyle adherents as well and they are arrogantly dismissive of a YEC worldview.  I know one young lady who goes to a psychic on a regular basis but is an atheist.  Of course I also know many people who dismiss all kinds of pseudoscience. :)

 

So why do some people feel that it's valid to pick and choose among the varying branches of pseudoscience?

 

And we may get as many definitions of "pseudoscience" as we have posts in this thread.