To me this video represents liberalism in society... which is why I want to see what QM says about this. Without liberalism running rampant through the 60's I feel many of these topics would still be taboo. Through liberalism I feel as though consciousness has expanded on many fronts. Although, don't tell that too a business man - they're not supposed to be empathetic with humans who are below them in the hierarchy.

It seems like this video has a couple of things going on. It wants to talk about the evolution of consciousness & how it relates to being bi-polar in our modern world. But, mental illness for the masses in America is just a drug war. "Buy these, don't buy those". It's largely a fabricated industry & consciousness is another story.

As far as I can see on the topic of evolved consciousness - many, many, many more people in liberal cities have evolved. But, I think the internet is a great device so I think if someone is interested in certain aspects of reality they too can evolve their consciousness & thought processes from the middle of no-where in Kansas; if they really care to or know to. I mean we're constantly expanding QM's consciousness - he just doesn't know it yet he's afraid of it!

I was diagnosed with ADHD when I was a teenager by a psychologist... but I may as well have been diagnosed bi-polar. I was pissed off at the world even though I had it all and was fairly sheltered... and that was the problem. It was too peaceful & I knew the world was out there waiting for me to find out the truth. So, I'm not exactly sure if we could say that my affliction was/is the symptom of post-modern evolution of consciousness but just an annoyance of mundane life tangled up with general anxiety.

I definitely think many people could benefit from "alternative medicine". I know it has a new agey bad wrap. I was prescribed both ritalin (legalized speed) & zoloft (what the hell is it? I don't know!) which are obviously fairly potent. I've experimented with herbal shit like 5-HTP which helps produce more serotonin and it works. It's not as potent but if someone doesn't have a serious mental illness it can work for short-term use and is great for people who would rather not turn into a zombie/robot.

As far as weed... I'm not sure if pot is the greatest thing for someone who is "bi-polar" or super depressed... mushies are great for positive consciousness just don't take em when you're feeling low, lol!

Either way, no one can be happy all of the time. We're human after all. Even though I hate the (human capitalist pig waste) fucking world - I am happy & people always tell me I'm super positive hahaha!! They can never know the truth!



As always...

Agreed. I thought his point was to actually demonstrate what the homeopathic remedy concept entails... its one thing to pay $5 for something in the health-food aisle marketed to treat your health condition and another to see how that $5 box of BS was actually created.

I've notice there is a degree of confusion between 'homeopathy' and 'herbology' or 'natural medicines', as they are often marketed side-by-side as 'alternative medicines'... homeopathy is complete horseshit, while many (certainly not all) natural medicines are basically unprocessed drugs and vitamins.

'Homeopathy' sounds Latin and scientific, but its a scam for the ill-informed who see it as a cheap alternative to actual medicine, or those who confuse it with 'natural medicines' which may well contain salicylic acid (aspirin) or whatever and make you feels somewhat better.

>> ^solecist:

he's absolutely right about homeopathy, but i'm not sure what this video is trying to prove. homeopaths are well aware that most of their active ingredients are poisonous when taken in an undiluted form. upvoting for the sentiment, at least.
ps, a shot of straight bleach would not kill a grown man.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it, there's nothing wrong with that either.


The difference between cannabis and alternative medicine is HUGE! Cannabis has proven medical benefits with minimal side effects.

The reason why you see it used as an argument frequently is because the anti-cannabis idiots keep saying it should be illegal because it has no practical uses. Not only is this a ridiculous argument for a freedom-loving country, it is also patently false. So you see the medical uses being discussed a lot.

You are correct in your assertion that many people just want to be able to grow and smoke weed legally, but the "medical marijuana" angle is not just a front. It's a real issue.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^blankfist:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it , there's nothing wrong with that either.
i.e. being impaired when you should be competent (drivers, pilots, looking after children or infirm people)

I'll be sure to pass your message along to the patients who claim it helps with their cancer.
Nice appeal to pity.
They can claim it all they want. Some of them probably also claim that crystals and homoeopathy help too. Doesn't make it true.
Look, I'm not saying it isn't possible that marijuana has some medical benefits, simply that it should be subject to the same medical study as other cures. Meanwhile, let's give up the false piety of "we just want to help cancer patients." Yeah right, that may be a positive side effect but have the honesty to admit you just want to get stoned, and have the moral courage to admit that's not a bad thing.


Don't give a shit about any of that. I know Marijuana helps with pain, and for people suffering from pain problems who can't play with their kids or do really anything it means a lot. So yeah that's a huge benefit.

>> ^blankfist:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it , there's nothing wrong with that either.
i.e. being impaired when you should be competent (drivers, pilots, looking after children or infirm people)

I'll be sure to pass your message along to the patients who claim it helps with their cancer.

Nice appeal to pity.

They can claim it all they want. Some of them probably also claim that crystals and homoeopathy help too. Doesn't make it true.

Look, I'm not saying it isn't possible that marijuana has some medical benefits, simply that it should be subject to the same medical study as other cures. Meanwhile, let's give up the false piety of "we just want to help cancer patients." Yeah right, that may be a positive side effect but have the honesty to admit you just want to get stoned, and have the moral courage to admit that's not a bad thing.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it , there's nothing wrong with that either.
i.e. being impaired when you should be competent (drivers, pilots, looking after children or infirm people)


I'll be sure to pass your message along to the patients who claim it helps with their cancer.

I do find it ironic that the same people who see "alternative medicine" for the bullshit it is, will often defend "medical" marijuana. Just admit you want get high! It's no worse than getting drunk, and as long as you're not a dick about it*, there's nothing wrong with that either.

* i.e. being impaired when you should be competent (drivers, pilots, looking after children or infirm people)

haha! ♥

i won't get into the bipolar stuff again, because you already know what i think. instead i want to touch on something you mentioned. in clinical psychology, it has long been known that the patient-practioner relationship (or whatever you'd like to call it, "therapeutic alliance" etc) is beneficial. in essence, it is an instantiation of a placebo-like effect. a patient forms (or already has) expectations about treatment outcomes, and these expectations do in fact produce effects (through a number of mechanisms -- i'll spare you the thesis).

as a scientist, but also a caring member of the human race, this creates a dilemma.

on the one hand, i feel it is important to point out the potential harm of alternative medicine, because we know its effects, if any, are placebo -- and placebo effects are neither consistent nor universal. in other words, you have a better chance of fortuitous outcome with scientifically proven medicine -- medicine that has been rigorously tested against placebos.

on the other hand, the fact that placebo effects produce measurable improvements across a wide range of illnesses raises important questions. what qualifies as a real treatment? what separates a real treatment from an unreal treatment? why should treatments that improve, heal, or cure people be treated as inferior because their underlying mechanism is psychological rather than pharmacological? is deception ever morally acceptable?

when you think about it, the kinds of rituals that produce these "common factor" effects will be exacerbated in alternative medicine -- because there IS no active substance. but far from being null and void, these rituals can lead to improvement (in certain situations, the boundaries of which we do not clearly understand because, as i've opined before: science is hard; science of human behaviour is fucking hard).

[disclaimer: i use 'placebo effect' in a very broad sense to mean more than what most people would consider it to mean. really i should be using 'expectancy effect' but people unfamiliar with the literature might be even more confused by that.]

>> ^enoch:

p.s:dont feel bad trashing this dudes videos.berticus has to hold his down from exploding when i post one of this guys vids.

Exactly. Deepak's argument is nothing more than a sound bite based on a flimsy premise. I think this guy exposed exactly how flimsy Chopra's premise is. Deepak should have worded his argument more carefully. It may not be as catchy and compact as his original argument, but hey, neither are life's complexities. Let him defend himself; don't do the job for him.

Why does anyone here want to give this 'new age' spirituality and alternative medicine pusher the benefit of the doubt anyway? Screw him. >> ^bcglorf:

The sad part is that the guy probably thinks he totally demolished his entire argument when he really just got a nice play on words in.
Deepak's argument was "all belief is a cover up for insecurity". If he doesn't really mean ALL belief, his argument is really just a nice play on words. So, I would say the speaker really did demolish the entire argument, since the entire argument was nothing more than a play on words itself.

and the answer is: because i work in the field, somewhere in the middle of alt treatment and mainstream treatment. i'm quite mainstream in many parts of the world, alt in others. it's really pretty stupid.
i work mostly with fairly severe spinal issues. i'm particularly fond of somatic theory, from a structural perspective, and i practice and teach manual therapy utilizing a neurological approach focusing on rotational distortion. On the whole, what is often dismissed as alternative in treatment turns out to be the most innovative, that pushes mainstream treatments into new and more effective territory. "Touching" a person was pretty out of style in the accepted medical practice until late, -- PT's are actually starting to get a clue.

i'm quite aware of the fluff that is out there, the weird, the barbaric, the hippy dippy, the downright stupid. both the alt side of things, as you might define it, and the mainstream side of things, often fall into these categories. There are however, powerful lobbies that make one form of treatment more acceptable than others.... Big pharma is insanely powerful, and insanely profitable... we're drugging our kids for fucks sake.
and lets put it this way, the profit margin is very small in what i do. it's just too time consuming and labor intensive.

And while the business side of things has thoroughly poisoned mainstream medicine, there tends to be more, but not necessarily all, of "alt" providers, who purposely shy away from it. we'd all be better off in a socialist medicine system that was not for profit. In every socialist system, some form of what i do is commonplace, mainstream, accepted science...goddamn common sense.
anyhoo..., would you like some figures on iatrogenic death?

I worked in an acupuncture clinic for a bit, mostly treating cancer and HIV. The acupuncture was most effective for treating nausea, pain, and other symptoms that came with the chemo.
In china it is combined with herbs to treat the cancer. I don't know the success rates. i know they take their acupuncture very seriously, and very scientifically... and western docs are starting to wake up to it.
For chronic pain issues (back, neck, pain) etc...i probably bat somewhere in 80-90%. That destroys mainstream. I'm an anomaly, but i shouldn't be. more talented people should be in this field. and being able to spot and work with spinal issues at young ages would save billions of dollars in lost labor, workers comp, SSI, medical expenses, drugs...a shit ton of pain and suffering.

foresight. preventative medicine.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm arguing because you seem to think "alternative medicine" is superior to medicine. What point are you trying to make about chemotherapy, exactly? In many cases it's a very effective treatment. Do you know what the success rate of, say, acupuncture is for treating cancer? How about therapeutic touch? Or chakra realignment? Or ground turtle shell? Or homeopathy? Or vitamin megadosing? Or evening primrose oil supplements? Or magnetic wristbands? Nil. Nothing. No demonstrable effect. And there's a reason for that. There is no alternative to medicine. There's medicine, and there's "crap that doesn't work".
You're right that the major difference between scientific medicine and "alternative medicine" is the degree that it is run purely as profit generating business. Except that you have it completely the wrong way round. "Alternative medicine" has no chance of curing you, and costs money. Medicine has a chance of curing you, using products and medicines backed up by science, and costs money. I know which I'd rather go for. "Western medicine" (as you call it, though you should note that the practice of science-based medicine isn't limited to the Western world, thank goodness) is interested in cures because the effective interventions are the ones that get used, thereby generating income. It's only in the field of "alternative medicine" that "crap that doesn't work" can be sold for a profit without anyone ever questioning it. If a medical intervention or treatment doesn't work, the scientific method roots it out eventually, but tellingly there is no such self-regulatory framework in place when it comes to "alternative medicine", and the practitioners don't care.
Put it this way: if it were true that science-based medicine didn't "know their ass from a hole in the ground" when it comes to chronic pain then what the hell would make you think that the pseudoscientific bullshitfest that is "alternative medicine" would stand a chance at solving the problem?
>> ^criticalthud:
alright there. not really getting the gist of the statement, are you?
you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
do you know what the success rate of chemo is for curing cancer? pretty much the same as not having it
back surgery? the same
there's plenty of crap out there, and no "medicine" is immune from it. the one major difference between what is labeled as alt and what isn't is the degree that it is run purely as profit generating business. Do you get it? western medicine isn't necessarily interested in cures. doctors might be, but the biz side of it ain't. it's quick fix, in and out, write the latest scrip that has been peddled to you by big pharma, and do the treatments and tests that you are allowed to do by the insurance company.
western medicine doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to chronic pain, because treating something that typically has it's roots in the structure of the body isn't profitable.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, I'm arguing because you seem to think "alternative medicine" is superior to medicine. What point are you trying to make about chemotherapy, exactly? In many cases it's a very effective treatment. Do you know what the success rate of, say, acupuncture is for treating cancer? How about therapeutic touch? Or chakra realignment? Or ground turtle shell? Or homeopathy? Or vitamin megadosing? Or evening primrose oil supplements? Or magnetic wristbands? Nil. Nothing. No demonstrable effect. And there's a reason for that. There is no alternative to medicine. There's medicine, and there's "crap that doesn't work".

You're right that the major difference between scientific medicine and "alternative medicine" is the degree that it is run purely as profit generating business. Except that you have it completely the wrong way round. "Alternative medicine" has no chance of curing you, and costs money. Medicine has a chance of curing you, using products and medicines backed up by science, and costs money. I know which I'd rather go for. "Western medicine" (as you call it, though you should note that the practice of science-based medicine isn't limited to the Western world, thank goodness) is interested in cures because the effective interventions are the ones that get used, thereby generating income. It's only in the field of "alternative medicine" that "crap that doesn't work" can be sold for a profit without anyone ever questioning it. If a medical intervention or treatment doesn't work, the scientific method roots it out eventually, but tellingly there is no such self-regulatory framework in place when it comes to "alternative medicine", and the practitioners don't care.

Put it this way: if it were true that science-based medicine didn't "know their ass from a hole in the ground" when it comes to chronic pain then what the hell would make you think that the pseudoscientific bullshitfest that is "alternative medicine" would stand a chance at solving the problem?

>> ^criticalthud:

alright there. not really getting the gist of the statement, are you?
you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
do you know what the success rate of chemo is for curing cancer? pretty much the same as not having it
back surgery? the same
there's plenty of crap out there, and no "medicine" is immune from it. the one major difference between what is labeled as alt and what isn't is the degree that it is run purely as profit generating business. Do you get it? western medicine isn't necessarily interested in cures. doctors might be, but the biz side of it ain't. it's quick fix, in and out, write the latest scrip that has been peddled to you by big pharma, and do the treatments and tests that you are allowed to do by the insurance company.
western medicine doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to chronic pain, because treating something that typically has it's roots in the structure of the body isn't profitable.

alright there. not really getting the gist of the statement, are you?
you're arguing for the sake of arguing.
do you know what the success rate of chemo is for curing cancer? pretty much the same as not having it
back surgery? the same
there's plenty of crap out there, and no "medicine" is immune from it. the one major difference between what is labeled as alt and what isn't is the degree that it is run purely as profit generating business. Do you get it? western medicine isn't necessarily interested in cures. doctors might be, but the biz side of it ain't. it's quick fix, in and out, write the latest scrip that has been peddled to you by big pharma, and do the treatments and tests that you are allowed to do by the insurance company.
western medicine doesn't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to chronic pain, because treating something that typically has it's roots in the structure of the body isn't profitable.

>> ^FlowersInHisHair:

>> ^criticalthud:
being compensated for your work is a far different thing than structuring your entire business according to the bottom line.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^criticalthud:
Western medicine tends to be really good in one area - trauma.
guess where western medicine learned most of it's trauma skills...? yes indeed, the battlefield.
For other things such as chronic pain, western med generally sucks. Partly because you have a for-profit system that makes far more money treating than through prevention or cure.

And alt med isn't "for profit"? Bwahahaha.


And there's a bigger difference between charging for legitimate, scientifically tested practices and products that have been demonstrated to work and charging for sugar pills and magical thinking. Both medicine and "alternative medicine" are for-profit, but "alternative medicine" can't even legitimately claim to have any aims to cure its customers. Medicine is a for-profit enterprise that aims to treat disease and injury with the application of science. "Alternative medicine" is a for-profit enterprise that aims to bilk its marks for as much cash as they can spare (or even more) with little hope of actually treating their complaint.

>> ^criticalthud:

being compensated for your work is a far different thing than structuring your entire business according to the bottom line.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
>> ^criticalthud:
Western medicine tends to be really good in one area - trauma.
guess where western medicine learned most of it's trauma skills...? yes indeed, the battlefield.
For other things such as chronic pain, western med generally sucks. Partly because you have a for-profit system that makes far more money treating than through prevention or cure.

And alt med isn't "for profit"? Bwahahaha.


And there's a bigger difference between charging for legitimate, scientifically tested practices and products that have been demonstrated to work and charging for sugar pills and magical thinking. Both medicine and "alternative medicine" are for-profit, but "alternative medicine" can't even legitimately claim to have any aims to cure its customers. Medicine is a for-profit enterprise that aims to treat disease and injury with the application of science. "Alternative medicine" is a for-profit enterprise that aims to bilk its marks for as much cash as they can spare (or even more) with little hope of actually treating their complaint.

indeed.

Much of my work is on somatic theory.
Chiropractic, as an osteopathy derivative, has some solid basis in that they look at nerve compression at the spine, and while it is certainly true that decompressing innervation at the spine can help with other problems, such as GI issues and asthma, in a technique sense they are only focusing on one aspect of distortion - that of restriction at the spine. However, once there is a distortion at the spine (the bottom of the brain) it becomes a whole body pattern and issue...which requires far more time, patience, and attention to detail than merely popping a facet joint. It requires the type of time and patience that is non-existent in most of western medicine, or chiropractic. The body is a seamless whole.

It's very hard to make a lot of money doing this work.
But a chiro can pop 10 people an hour. A western doc can write 40 scrips an hour.

Massage is typically working by accident. It helps, but it is premised on a muscular approach, which is incredibly misleading. Muscles may dominate the body in terms of size, but they are a reactive system, not a controlling system, and the lowest man on the totem pole in terms of the hierarchy of survival mechanisms. Physical therapy is also stuck on the muscular approach to the body. In fact, this approach typically dominates western thought when it comes to somatic/structural distortion/pain. And most people go to hospitals with essentially somatic complaints. See where i'm going with this?

Harrington rods for scoliosis should one day be properly viewed as barbaric.


In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
A friend of mine had scoliosis, at least I think that what she had, I never heard the proper medical term for it. She had it corrected by doctors inserting some metal rods by her spine, so now her back is all stiff - I'm a little vague on the details since it's a while since I heard the story.

In any case, I agree that we must also heavily scrutinize the medical system, since companies go where the profits are, and if there are no profits to be had, then that kind of medicine is discarded and abandoned. This is what has happened with many potential cancer treatments, since there is less profit in un-patentable formulas than those that can be patented.

If your methods actually do work consistently then it would certainly stand up to scientific standards, it must be replicable and verifiable and that's basically it. The problem is that often it works like "magic" and heals some, but not all with what appears to be the same illness. This is due to a lack of understanding of what is actually wrong with a patient.

The back and nervous system is notoriously hard to "fix" since few people understand it very well and each person is unique (to some extent).

Some "alternative" medicines are perinormal - they work, but we don't know it yet. They are essentially medicines, but we have not determined precisely how and why they help. "Home remedies" are really a proto-version of alternative medicines in this way, in that someone once used it and it worked. Others, like homeopathy, are demonstrably false and are indeed scams. The make wild claims based on nothing but superstition and humbug.

Prayer is also not medicine. If you get bitten by a snake and pray for the venom to leave your body, you die.

The court of public opinion is highly subjective and cannot be trusted to make reliable judgments. This is why the scientific method exists - to eliminate the need for "he said, she said".

It is smart to be weary of the medicinal industry, I'll grant you that, but your doctor is not an arm of that - he (or she) is a healer, that is their goal. I am deeply troubled when certain doctors are influenced by incentives that go against the patient's best interest - it does happen, medicinal firms offering bonuses if you use their products even though they're inferior and so on. But the fact remains that this inferior product has still gone through channels which ensure that it does work, alternative medicine does not.

It is absolutely imperative that people are not deceived to believe that some treatments do more than they think, like when chiropractic offers treatments to non-musceloskeletal problems like ADHD or asthma. It may help your back, fair enough, I've cracked my own back and I think it helps, because it feels good - chocolate feels good too, but it doesn't help my health.

The second such a snake oil salesman does not want to stand up to proper scrutiny is when he has revealed himself to be a fraud. Because if his method is disproved, then he cannot fake it anymore.

I do not doubt that massage therapy does offer relief and helps with muscle problems, I could also believe that chiropractic helps with joint pain, muscle pain or some skeletal problems - but they must be studied and analysed properly and not just pretend like it works, we must know WHY it works.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
Some great insights.
My difficulty is in the gross generalizations that are taking place.
I do what some people call "alternative" medicine. I don't necessarily take exception to that title given the state of western medicine.
Growing up with a scoliosis I searched for different approaches to fix the problem, and eventually ended up practicing and teaching manual therapy from a neurological model of the body, focusing on rotational distortion. It is essentially cutting edge, and i can do things with a spine that would make a western neurosurgeon question his approach.

However I may not stand up to scrutiny by western standards, since I essentially view the body in a much different manner, and certainly work with it in a much different manner.
Tomorrow however, may be a different story, as it has been with acupuncture, massage, osteopathy, non-freudian psychology, or any number of treatments that have made their way into the mainstream. Scrutiny is often the court of public opinion, although this court of opinion is greatly effected by what we have been brought up to believe and who we automatically give status and credibility to.

I think it is essential that all practitioners of the healing arts, including western medicine, realize that our actual knowledge of the human body, it's functions, and it's abilities, is very small. And it is exceedingly important to keep those doors to possibilities open.

At the same time, it is incumbent upon us to heavily scrutinize the current accepted treatments which are more often than not inadequate, reliant upon drugs, or are barbaric in nature. At the same time we must heavily scrutinize an overall system which is premised on the industry making a profit, which lends itself to indefinitely treating symptoms rather than preventative medicine.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Scientific method.

"Alternative" medicine wants to do the same thing as Intelligent Design, it wants to take the easy road. ID wants to be in the class room without having sufficient evidence to support its claim. Alternative medicine wants to be sold and used to heal sick people. The latter is fine and even admirable, if it works, but there is insufficient evidence to support the claims that alternative medicine makes.

If you buy a service from me that I cannot provide, then you have been scammed and my claim was bunk. This is what alternative medicine does.

Defining alternative, it's medicine that hasn't gone through thorough scrutiny and does not stand up to it. It is medicine that doesn't work.

Pick your poison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine Homeopathy, Chiropractic, energy therapy, crystals all that stuff.

Regarding massage and acupuncture, I'm in a more relaxed approach, because they don't promise magical solutions. Massage works at healing muscle pain, certainly, and it certainly relaxing. Acupuncture, I don't have sufficient knowledge about to make a definitive judgment about. Naturally, I'm skeptical, because as far as I know, it has not been tested to the proper extent that it should to be called medicine. When I read about more details of it "Qi" and whatnot - I get more skeptical.

It may work, but it should be tested experimentally, before making claims of healing.

People are allowed to use their money as they want, but these things should damn well not be able to call themselves medicine. Relaxation, sure, therapy, perhaps, healing - no.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
would you care to define alternative? do you mean non-american, non-western?
does acupuncture stand up to western scrutiny? how about manual therapy? who's scrutiny are you talking about? Tell me how you measure what people FEEL with a machine, or a bloodtest.
how well does typical western medicine deal with back pain? - drugs, drugs, more drugs?
how about a scoliosis? neurological strain patterns? any chronic pain issue?
western medicine, relies on over-drugging it's patients, treating each as a number. What and how they practice is often completely controlled by insurance companies.
perhaps your statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
sure there is crap out there, but lets not pretend that western medicine is immune. far from it, it's peddling a good portion of the stinkiest garbage.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Alternative medicine is bunk. Like alternative math or alternative reason.

If there was any truth to it, it would stand up to scrutiny and it would be used as proper treatment. Homeopathy especially is downright fraud.

*debunked

A friend of mine had scoliosis, at least I think that what she had, I never heard the proper medical term for it. She had it corrected by doctors inserting some metal rods by her spine, so now her back is all stiff - I'm a little vague on the details since it's a while since I heard the story.

In any case, I agree that we must also heavily scrutinize the medical system, since companies go where the profits are, and if there are no profits to be had, then that kind of medicine is discarded and abandoned. This is what has happened with many potential cancer treatments, since there is less profit in un-patentable formulas than those that can be patented.

If your methods actually do work consistently then it would certainly stand up to scientific standards, it must be replicable and verifiable and that's basically it. The problem is that often it works like "magic" and heals some, but not all with what appears to be the same illness. This is due to a lack of understanding of what is actually wrong with a patient.

The back and nervous system is notoriously hard to "fix" since few people understand it very well and each person is unique (to some extent).

Some "alternative" medicines are perinormal - they work, but we don't know it yet. They are essentially medicines, but we have not determined precisely how and why they help. "Home remedies" are really a proto-version of alternative medicines in this way, in that someone once used it and it worked. Others, like homeopathy, are demonstrably false and are indeed scams. The make wild claims based on nothing but superstition and humbug.

Prayer is also not medicine. If you get bitten by a snake and pray for the venom to leave your body, you die.

The court of public opinion is highly subjective and cannot be trusted to make reliable judgments. This is why the scientific method exists - to eliminate the need for "he said, she said".

It is smart to be weary of the medicinal industry, I'll grant you that, but your doctor is not an arm of that - he (or she) is a healer, that is their goal. I am deeply troubled when certain doctors are influenced by incentives that go against the patient's best interest - it does happen, medicinal firms offering bonuses if you use their products even though they're inferior and so on. But the fact remains that this inferior product has still gone through channels which ensure that it does work, alternative medicine does not.

It is absolutely imperative that people are not deceived to believe that some treatments do more than they think, like when chiropractic offers treatments to non-musceloskeletal problems like ADHD or asthma. It may help your back, fair enough, I've cracked my own back and I think it helps, because it feels good - chocolate feels good too, but it doesn't help my health.

The second such a snake oil salesman does not want to stand up to proper scrutiny is when he has revealed himself to be a fraud. Because if his method is disproved, then he cannot fake it anymore.

I do not doubt that massage therapy does offer relief and helps with muscle problems, I could also believe that chiropractic helps with joint pain, muscle pain or some skeletal problems - but they must be studied and analysed properly and not just pretend like it works, we must know WHY it works.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
Some great insights.
My difficulty is in the gross generalizations that are taking place.
I do what some people call "alternative" medicine. I don't necessarily take exception to that title given the state of western medicine.
Growing up with a scoliosis I searched for different approaches to fix the problem, and eventually ended up practicing and teaching manual therapy from a neurological model of the body, focusing on rotational distortion. It is essentially cutting edge, and i can do things with a spine that would make a western neurosurgeon question his approach.

However I may not stand up to scrutiny by western standards, since I essentially view the body in a much different manner, and certainly work with it in a much different manner.
Tomorrow however, may be a different story, as it has been with acupuncture, massage, osteopathy, non-freudian psychology, or any number of treatments that have made their way into the mainstream. Scrutiny is often the court of public opinion, although this court of opinion is greatly effected by what we have been brought up to believe and who we automatically give status and credibility to.

I think it is essential that all practitioners of the healing arts, including western medicine, realize that our actual knowledge of the human body, it's functions, and it's abilities, is very small. And it is exceedingly important to keep those doors to possibilities open.

At the same time, it is incumbent upon us to heavily scrutinize the current accepted treatments which are more often than not inadequate, reliant upon drugs, or are barbaric in nature. At the same time we must heavily scrutinize an overall system which is premised on the industry making a profit, which lends itself to indefinitely treating symptoms rather than preventative medicine.

In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Scientific method.

"Alternative" medicine wants to do the same thing as Intelligent Design, it wants to take the easy road. ID wants to be in the class room without having sufficient evidence to support its claim. Alternative medicine wants to be sold and used to heal sick people. The latter is fine and even admirable, if it works, but there is insufficient evidence to support the claims that alternative medicine makes.

If you buy a service from me that I cannot provide, then you have been scammed and my claim was bunk. This is what alternative medicine does.

Defining alternative, it's medicine that hasn't gone through thorough scrutiny and does not stand up to it. It is medicine that doesn't work.

Pick your poison: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine Homeopathy, Chiropractic, energy therapy, crystals all that stuff.

Regarding massage and acupuncture, I'm in a more relaxed approach, because they don't promise magical solutions. Massage works at healing muscle pain, certainly, and it certainly relaxing. Acupuncture, I don't have sufficient knowledge about to make a definitive judgment about. Naturally, I'm skeptical, because as far as I know, it has not been tested to the proper extent that it should to be called medicine. When I read about more details of it "Qi" and whatnot - I get more skeptical.

It may work, but it should be tested experimentally, before making claims of healing.

People are allowed to use their money as they want, but these things should damn well not be able to call themselves medicine. Relaxation, sure, therapy, perhaps, healing - no.

In reply to this comment by criticalthud:
would you care to define alternative? do you mean non-american, non-western?
does acupuncture stand up to western scrutiny? how about manual therapy? who's scrutiny are you talking about? Tell me how you measure what people FEEL with a machine, or a bloodtest.
how well does typical western medicine deal with back pain? - drugs, drugs, more drugs?
how about a scoliosis? neurological strain patterns? any chronic pain issue?
western medicine, relies on over-drugging it's patients, treating each as a number. What and how they practice is often completely controlled by insurance companies.
perhaps your statement doesn't stand up to scrutiny.
sure there is crap out there, but lets not pretend that western medicine is immune. far from it, it's peddling a good portion of the stinkiest garbage.



In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
Alternative medicine is bunk. Like alternative math or alternative reason.

If there was any truth to it, it would stand up to scrutiny and it would be used as proper treatment. Homeopathy especially is downright fraud.

*debunked