Alternative Therapies?

oscarBravo

What's this board's stand on alternative therapies?

I see a number of issues mentioned here (Moody's, for example) that I'm pretty sure could be quickly and effectively helped by therapists who think "outside the box," so to speak, but I'm a little hesitant to contribute for fear of being seen to pimp certain types of therapy.

I watched "Ask Anna" this evening, where a Limerick woman got over her fear of dogs. It was impressive how completely she recovered, but it took three weeks and was quite painful for her in places. There are techniques that can achieve the same result painlessly in less than an hour! I'm evangelistic about these things, but I try to be careful where I do it.

Thoughts?

Gordon

Well, I guess, like we cannot have non-medical specialists explaining medical procedures for certain ailments - it would be unwise to let non-holistic medical specialists explaining procedures for certain ailments. When I say holistic I mean alternative therapies as you suggest.

This is a community where the members can post freely about experiences they have had but we try to stave them off suggesting certain procedures for quoted symptoms.

I am personally interested in alternative therapies that you have heard of as I'm sure many other may be. I would, however, have a problem with any such groups or individuals getting airtime on PI if they have not been medically qualified. OK, Jesus wasn't medically qualified but in this day and age, I could be wrong here, there is always a possibility for angry people with talented lawyers.

I waffle.

Post what you have in mind and we'll take it from there.

The fact that you are 'evangelistic' about it however, does scare me!

Victor

Originally posted by oscarBravo
I'm evangelistic about these things, but I try to be careful where I do it.

Evangelistic bad. Suggestions of alternatives good.

And actually the preference is for complimentary medicine these days, not alternative medicine.

oscarBravo

Hm, OK.

I'm going to err on the side of caution. "Evangelistic" was probably an inappropriate word; "enthusiastic" is probably closer to the mark, but I'm certainly not going to foist any beliefs on anyone.

The distinction between "complementary" and "alternative" therapies is an interesting one, and frankly one that I haven't really thought about. In which category do people place hypnosis, for example? Or acupuncture? Reflexology? EFT? NLP? Reiki?

Maybe it's down to the frame of mind of the therapist. Some seem to believe that Western medicine is intrinsically bad, and that their particular therapy is "better" in some way. I certainly don't consider anything I do to be a replacement for conventional medicine, but it can be an extremely useful adjunct -- especially in cases where conventional medicine is stumped.

LegacyUser

Haven't been quite so scared of fires since I held my fingers in a candle...

Silent Bob

Apparently most homeopathic dilutions are so dilute that there is a less than 1 in a million chance of you getting a bottle with even 1 molecule of the diluted substance in it (/me was watching beeb2 last night).

Make of that what you will...

Homeopath... sounds like a gay axe-murderer

Victor

Originally posted by oscarBravo
The distinction between "complementary" and "alternative" therapies is an interesting one, and frankly one that I haven't really thought about. In which category do people place hypnosis, for example? Or acupuncture? Reflexology? EFT? NLP? Reiki?

"Complementary" and "alternative" medicine are the same medicine, it's just that the practitioners of alternative medicine do not recognise the value of "western" medicine.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Victor
"Complementary" and "alternative" medicine are the same medicine, it's just that the practitioners of alternative medicine do not recognise the value of "western" medicine.

Colour me "complementary" so.

Gordon

Silent Bob, that's what I heard. Homeopathic medicine (as far as I have learned from a limited book, so I don't know what I'm talking about here) is achieved by dilution of base ingredients.

• Step 1: You would get one drop of the base material in a phial and put ten drops of distilled water into it also.
• Step 2: "Succuss" (sp) the phial a certain amount of times depending on the base material - eg 20 times.

Repeat these steps for quite a few times. ie - you would then take one drop of the succussed liquid and put it in another phial with 20 drops of distilled water, then sucuss it 20 times etc etc etc.

Scientists have proven that homeopathic remedies can sometimes hold only one atom of the original material! (or maybe that is molecule according to Silent Bob) However homeopathics (I have spoken to one about this) will argue that it is not the base material that is the cure - it is the vibration of the remedy that is instilled into the solution.

Therefore, I take that to mean: All life can be said to have a 'vibration', in sucussing the remedy in water - the water takes on the vibration of the remedy. Maybe, I could be wrong, I do have a bad hangover too.

My question is - why vibe the water if you can just give someone the remedy?

davros

The difference between "alternative" therapies and modern (I think that's a more accurate term than "Western") medicine is this:

All modern medical treatments are evaluated in double-blind clinical trials and rigorously evaluated using the strongest statistical techniques. These are legal requirements and are strictly enforced. Thus, you may be reasonably assured that a modern medicine does what it claims to do. It has been proven in a scrupulously fair test to do so.

"Alternative" therapies, in contrast, are not proven to do anything. In fact, attempts to show they work using double-blind clinical trials invariably fail.

I am amazed (and angry) that nonsense like homeopathy can be openly promoted without charges of fraud or false advertising being brought against the practitioners. Unfortunately, homeopathy is protected by a quirk in the law that is a hangover from the 19th century when real medicine could do no better.

These therapies put peoples' health at serious risk. I have heard, for example, of a homeopathic prophylactic against malaria. Malaria can kill. Taking sugar pills in place of the correct tablets is courting serious illness.

I can recommend a couple of websites:
Quack Watch
HomeoWatch

patch

Don't get so excited davros.... I'd reccomend putting a couple of drops of lavender on your pillow to get a decent nights sleep.
st. Johns wort can be taken to relieve those feelings of unprovoked tension

Samara

I'm quite interested in alternative therapies but would never choose them over my doctor's treatment, as the word complementary suggests, using in addition to proper medical treatment with your doctor's knowledge and approval is probably the way to go.

I've done aromatherapy courses so dabble frequently with these but as with any other treatment, you should be trained in order to use yourself, some oils should not be used in conjunction with high or low blood pressure, pregnancy etc. so it's a little alarming that you can buy 100% pure essential oils and the shop assistant barely gives it a second glance let alone advises you on it. Saying that, there are little or no regulations and a lot of oils you buy say essential oil but are actually blended so are not as beneficial and are certainly not pure.

Regarding homeopathic remedies, a lot of them use plants or herbs that are poisonous unless really diluted down, for example a small amount of arnica could kill on it's own but diluted to the proper guidelines it is sold it is a remedy.

I think alternative therapies have a lot to offer and are beneficial, the correct oil can lift your mood or soothe your headache. whether it be meditation or kinesiology etc. I believe it has a lot to offer. I understand Davros's point of view but any holistic practicioner worth their salt should encourage patients or clients to seek proper medical advice. Doctors these days are more open to recommending accupuncture and other alternative treatments and should be aware of any such treatment being received by one of their patients. The whole industry needs to be more regulated in order to root out the 'cowboys' or extremists, in the meantime we just have to hope common sense will prevail.

davros

Originally posted by patch69
Don't get so excited davros.... I'd reccomend putting a couple of drops of lavender on your pillow to get a decent nights sleep.
st. Johns wort can be taken to relieve those feelings of unprovoked tension

St. John's Wort was banned from over-the-counter sales in Ireland three years ago. It's a health risk. Are you trying to kill me???

patch

It's not a health risk my friend........ if taken as directed

http://www.go2net.org/health/stjohnswort.html

It was taken off the shelfs because people like yourself kicked up.
It's still widely avaliable.Nobody who enjoyed the benefits minded buying it in a healthfood shop.

davros

Originally posted by patch69
It's not a health risk my friend........ if taken as directed

http://www.go2net.org/health/stjohnswort.html

It was taken off the shelfs because people like yourself kicked up.
It's still widely avaliable.Nobody who enjoyed the benefits minded buying it in a healthfood shop.

Actually, I'm quite willing to admit that herbal medicine can produce real effects on the physiology, both good and bad.

Nothing wrong with a good massage (hands-on, not Reiki) and some pleasant aromas for relaxation either.

It's the likes of homeopathy, iridology and refexology that bother me. These are just nonsense from start to finish. Have you seen how much a phial of pure distilled water, labelled as a homeopathic remedy, costs in Boots? 7 or 8 euro, if I recall correctly.

Incidentally, it is not just herbal extracts and poisons that are diluted down to zero concentration in homeopathy. Snake crap and coal dust have also been used.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by davros
All modern medical treatments are evaluated in double-blind clinical trials and rigorously evaluated using the strongest statistical techniques. These are legal requirements and are strictly enforced. Thus, you may be reasonably assured that a modern medicine does what it claims to do. It has been proven in a scrupulously fair test to do so.

Hmm. Can you say "side effects"?

"Alternative" therapies, in contrast, are not proven to do anything. In fact, attempts to show they work using double-blind clinical trials invariably fail.

Those are strong words, my friend. I don't know if you meant to do so, but you just stated in a single sentence that no complementary therapy ever works. That's simply not true.

I am amazed (and angry) that nonsense like homeopathy can be openly promoted without charges of fraud or false advertising being brought against the practitioners. Unfortunately, homeopathy is protected by a quirk in the law that is a hangover from the 19th century when real medicine could do no better.

Anything can be openly promoted, as long as it's within the guidelines set out by the ASAI. A homeopath can't claim anything in an advertisement that s/he can't demonstrate to be true.

These therapies put peoples' health at serious risk. I have heard, for example, of a homeopathic prophylactic against malaria. Malaria can kill. Taking sugar pills in place of the correct tablets is courting serious illness.

That's a given; hence the discussion earlier about alternative versus complementary therapies.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Samara
[...] I understand Davros's point of view but any holistic practicioner worth their salt should encourage patients or clients to seek proper medical advice.

Case in point: for a while I had one chap ring me every couple of months asking if I could help him with headaches. Every time I would ask him had he talked to his doctor, to which he would reply "do you think I should?" :rolleyes: I also sometimes have clients tell me they are thinking of coming off their antidepressants, at which point I always insist they talk to their doctor before making any such decision.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Those are strong words, my friend. I don't know if you meant to do so, but you just stated in a single sentence that no complementary therapy ever works. That's simply not true.

That's not what he said at all. He said:

"Alternative" therapies, in contrast, are not proven to do anything. In fact, attempts to show they work using double-blind clinical trials invariably fail.

As in: "All attempts to show they work using rigorous scientific methods have failed". This does not mean that people taking them won't see improvement, look up the placebo effect... :rolleyes:

davros

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Hmm. Can you say "side effects"?

I can One of the points of the clinical trial is to quantify side effects. It doesn't impress me when homeopathists, for example, tout the lack of side effects from their treatments. They are prescribing pure water. Of course there are no side effects - there are no effects, full stop.

but you just stated in a single sentence that no complementary therapy ever works. That's simply not true

Complementary medicine is an extremely lucrative industry. The money exists to put the treatments through clinical trials to prove that they work. Why does this not happen? Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.

A homeopath can't claim anything in an advertisement that s/he can't demonstrate to be true.

The strange thing is that our legislation allows homeopaths (actually explicitly named) to sell treatments without proving that they work. I don't know why this is so - perhaps it's a throwback to old British laws (the royal family favours homeopathy).

You are right that homeopathic medicines are not supposed to be labelled with any medicinal claims. But go into Boots and you will see a homeopathic treatment for insomnia, for example. That's an unjustifiable claim, in my opinion.

Victor

Originally posted by Silent Bob
As in: "All attempts to show they work using rigorous scientific methods have failed". This does not mean that people taking them won't see improvement, look up the placebo effect... :rolleyes:

Complementary therapies have uses. Yoga, massage, aromatherapy and the like are generally harmless, but provide benefits, not just by placebo, but by being an active focus (as opposed to a passive one like a placebo), in particular for removing stress - the "modern industrial disease" - and a major cause of complications in other diseases (heart disease, infections, depression).

Homeopathy would appear to be on the tolerated side of quack medicine. Presumably keeping it legal keeps it (and the money) away from the dangerous quacks.

A search of http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/front.html throws up various controls under:

S.I. No. 18/1987: MEDICAL PREPARATIONS (CONTROL OF SALE) REGULATIONS, 1987.
S.I. No. 69/1993: MEDICAL PREPARATIONS (PRESCRIPTION AND CONTROL OF SUPPLY) REGULATIONS, 1993.
S.I. No. 175/1994: ANIMAL REMEDIES CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE (PRESCRIBED ORGANISATIONS) REGULATIONS, 1994.
S.I. No. 439/1994: MEDICAL PREPARATIONS (LICENSING, ADVERTISEMENT AND SALE) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1994.
S.I. No. 440/1994: MEDICAL PREPARATIONS (LABELLING AND PACKAGE LEAFLETS) (AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 1994.
S.I. No. 256/1996: MEDICINAL PRODUCTS (PRESCRIPTION AND CONTROL OF SUPPLY) REGULATIONS, 1996
S.I. No. 179/1996: ANIMAL REMEDIES REGULATIONS, 1996 ARRANGEMENT OF REGULATIONS
S.I. No. 142/1998: MEDICINAL PRODUCTS (LICENSING AND SALE) REGULATIONS, 1998
Medical Practitioners Act, 1978
Pharmacy Act, 1951
Dentists Act, 1928
Irish Medicines Board Act, 1995
Sale of Food and Drugs Act, 1875
Pharmacy Act (Ireland), 1875
Pharmacy Acts, 1875 to 1977
Control of Clinical Trials Act, 1987
Medicinal Products (Prescription and Control of Supply) Regulations, 1996 (S.I. Nos. 256 and 309 of 1993)

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Silent Bob
"All attempts to show they work using rigorous scientific methods have failed".

That's a very sweeping statement. Are you that sure that there has never been a scientific study done that showed complementary methods to be effective?

As an isolated example, look at this page.

This does not mean that people taking them won't see improvement, look up the placebo effect... :rolleyes:

There's more to many complementary therapies than placebo.

Victor

Originally posted by oscarBravo
As an isolated example, look at this page.

Irrational fears of specific objects or situations such as insects, snakes, small animals, elevators, bridges, tunnels, or others, are among the most widespread fears reported according to surveys of the general population.

I only looked at a little of it, but tests using videos of snakes and flowers on monkies (that were lab bred and had never seen either) show that some fears (e.g. snakes) are genetic. Historicly, those monkies that had the gene to fear the snake survived and reproduced, those that didn't fear the snake got bitten and died. While we can overcome certain fears, we are forcing overselves to go beyond what would be safe behavior in the wild. Similar things might apply to very confined spaces, heights and the like.

Silent Bob

Originally posted by oscarBravo
That's a very sweeping statement. Are you that sure that there has never been a scientific study done that showed complementary methods to be effective?

1) I did not make that statement. I was clarifying meaning of a previous posters statement for you.

2) I never said that the placebo effect was the only possible reason for benefit.*





*though I probably implied it

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Victor
While we can overcome certain fears, we are forcing overselves to go beyond what would be safe behavior in the wild. Similar things might apply to very confined spaces, heights and the like.

Irrational fears of specific objects or situations such as insects, snakes, small animals, elevators, bridges, tunnels, or others, are among the most widespread fears reported according to surveys of the general population.

There's a difference between a healthy respect for danger and a phobia. Curing phobias doesn't make people stupid.

Originally posted by Silent Bob
I did not make that statement. I was clarifying meaning of a previous posters statement for you.

Fair enough; I took your clarification (and the placebo comment) to indicate that you agreed with that statement. My reply was really directed to the original statement that you clarified.

davros

Originally posted by oscarBravo
That's a very sweeping statement. Are you that sure that there has never been a scientific study done that showed complementary methods to be effective?

The claims made for complementary medicine are so miraculous (I'm not talking about relieving stress here - listening to music can do that) that they should be easy to prove. There is no reason for them to remain controversial if they are as effective as is claimed.

The fact is, these therapies have often been subjected to proper trials and they consistently fail. Modern medicine is quite happy to adopt any treatment that can be shown, objectively, to work. Sometimes drugs companies have been inspired by a particular natural remedy and have spent a decade or so tracking down the active ingredient, testing related compounds and performing clinical trials before releasing a new product.

As an isolated example, look at this page.

OK, I looked at this site. EFT is new to me but I'll make a few comments:
- The field of clinical psychology is notoriously riddled with pseudoscientific claptrap so we have to be even more careful than usual in evaluating these claims.
- The abstract of the paper does not lead me to believe that this was a properly controlled, double-blind trial (where neither the patient nor the doctor knows if the treatment being administered is the one under test or the control).
- There is a big red danger signal here: EFT is said to work by tapping on the body's supposed energy meridians. This is a concept that has no basis whatsoever in accepted knowledge about the human body.

Most damning of all is to let the site's owner and inventor of EFT, Mr. Gary Craig ("not a licensed health professional and offers EFT as an ordained minister and as a personal performance coach"), hang himself. On another page on the same site, Mr. Craig suggests that it is not even necessary to perform the EFT on the patient himself. You could perform it without the patient's knowledge on a surrogate.

Of course this raises ethical questions for Mr. Craig - can he cure someone without their consent or knowledge?

Shouldn't we ask the client first? If for some reason that's not feasible, then shouldn't we ask a Higher Power for permission to proceed? And if neither of those is done, shouldn't we at least first recite some permission generating statement like, "I offer this healing work only if it is in the highest and best good of the person receiving it."

Somehow, people can hear stuff like this and not immediately think "QUACK!". The whole field of complementary medicine depends on the public's avoidance of even the slightest bit of critical analysis.

For a more detailed critique of EFT, have a look here.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by davros
- The field of clinical psychology is notoriously riddled with pseudoscientific claptrap so we have to be even more careful than usual in evaluating these claims.

Fair enough.

- The abstract of the paper does not lead me to believe that this was a properly controlled, double-blind trial (where neither the patient nor the doctor knows if the treatment being administered is the one under test or the control).

If you can think of a way of double-blinding a test whereby one involves tapping on your body and the other doesn't, I'll be delighted to hear it!

- There is a big red danger signal here: EFT is said to work by tapping on the body's supposed energy meridians. This is a concept that has no basis whatsoever in accepted knowledge about the human body.

"Accepted" by the bulk of modern medical science, I grant you.

Most damning of all is to let the site's owner and inventor of EFT, Mr. Gary Craig ("not a licensed health professional and offers EFT as an ordained minister and as a personal performance coach"), hang himself. On another page on the same site, Mr. Craig suggests that it is not even necessary to perform the EFT on the patient himself. You could perform it without the patient's knowledge on a surrogate.

That's taking it to the extreme edge. Not all practitioners get into that end of it.

Somehow, people can hear stuff like this and not immediately think "QUACK!". The whole field of complementary medicine depends on the public's avoidance of even the slightest bit of critical analysis.

Maybe it depends on the suspension of cynicism long enough to see if it works for a given individual? I mean, I don't particularly care what the scientific basis for it is, if I can use it to help people.

For a more detailed critique of EFT, have a look here.

Interesting article. It seems to take the view that if something hasn't been proved to the satisfaction of science, then it doesn't exist, period. That's not a view I'm prepared to fully sucscribe to.

A while ago, I used EFT with a young lady who had such a severe water phobia that taking a shower was a traumatic ordeal. She told me last week that she now goes swimming three times a week.

Placebo? Meridians? My "charismatic personality"? Who knows. Do I care how it worked? Not much.

YMMV.

oscarBravo

I've reread that article in a little more detail now. It's well-presented and thoroughly researched, but does exhibit the kind of bias you'd expect from Skeptical Enquirer.

Firstly, the article deals largely with TFT, and dwells somewhat on Roger Callahan's large fees for TFT training; this is obviously aimed at discrediting the therapy by making it look nothing more than a money-spinner for its inventor. That's fair enough, as far as it goes. It fails to mention that Gary Craig, EFT's inventor, is practically giving away his derivation of the techniques, thereby allowing it (by omission) to be tarred with the same brush. Not dishonest by any means, but perhaps disingenuous.

The article refers to the fact that "...chi is more accurately conceptualized as a philosophy, not a science..." which is probably true, but demonstrates the disdain in which philosophy is held by science. As my last post said, I'm not prepared to casually dismiss things that science - as it currently stands - can't adequately explain.

There's probably not much to be gained from arguing the point any further. I understand the desire to explain things in an objective way, because that's how science works. Which is all very well, except that suffering is subjective, as are all human feelings.

It reminds me of the study that was done to determine what percentage of people are "hypnotisable." Using the rigorous principles of the scientific method, it conclusively proved that only about 80% of the population can be hypnotised. It's an interesting conclusion, especially in light of the fact that it's absolute nonsense.

You see, the problem with the scientific method is that by definition it allows for no variation in the procedures used to evaluate each test subject. Unfortunately, since hypnosis is a highly individual phenomenon, any clinical hypnotherapist worth his/her salt will tell you that you have to vary the approach in order to get the best results with each individual.

The scientific method's Achilles' heel is the very exclusion of subjectivity. It makes for a wonderful way of examining the world objectively, but it's utterly useless in dealing with individuality. I for one plan to live my life subjectively!

A final point: anecdotal evidence gets dismissed out of hand as "unscientific." It may not satisfy the rigours of academia, but it can be impressive. The referenced article talks about the effects of TFT possibly being due to elements of cognitive therapy and imagery exposure incorporated into the techniques. I recently watched Gary Craig's 6 days at the VA video, where he works with Vietnam vets that had been in therapy for 25-30 years with little or no success. The same vets showed remarkable improvements with just a few short sessions of EFT.

Again I ask the question: do these guys care about the underlying scientific explanation for how this therapy works? Do they care that science can't explain it, and chooses instead to dismiss it as gimmickry and quackery?

If you had spent 25 years in therapy, then found lasting relief from your problems in a couple of hours, would you care?

Silent Bob

Originally posted by oscarBravo
A while ago, I used EFT with a young lady who had such a severe water phobia that taking a shower was a traumatic ordeal. She told me last week that she now goes swimming three times a week

Slightly OT. How come people with hydrophobia aren't terrified of their own bodily fluids? If they bleed why don't they shout "GET IT OFF ME!!!"?

I've always wondered...

anyway, back on topic:

Originally posted by oscarBravo
Placebo? Meridians? My "charismatic personality"? Who knows. Do I care how it worked? Not much.

This is what distinguishes you from a scientist.

oscarBravo

Originally posted by Silent Bob
Slightly OT. How come people with hydrophobia aren't terrified of their own bodily fluids? If they bleed why don't they shout "GET IT OFF ME!!!"?

Because phobias are irrational fears. Ergo, they don't make sense. If they made sense, they wouldn't be phobias.

[...] This is what distinguishes you from a scientist.

Exactly. I'm a therapist: I'm more interested in what I can do to help people live normal, healthy lives than in what I can empirically prove works.

davros

Originally posted by oscarBravo
If you can think of a way of double-blinding a test whereby one involves tapping on your body and the other doesn't, I'll be delighted to hear it!

Yes, it's tough but you could go much of the distance. You could certainly blind the patient by either tapping on the meridians or off them. Even better, you could anaesthetise the patient (that might interfere with the meridians, I don't know) then either tap the body or not.

Or you could train a person to administer EFT in either the correct method or exactly the wrong method, unknown to him which. That would be a true double blind.

Not perfect, I'll admit.

It seems to take the view that if something hasn't been proved to the satisfaction of science, then it doesn't exist, period.

Well, if a proposition is falsifiable and is either falsified under experiment or is not submitted for test at all, then I would say you are right - science (and medicine) will not pay any further attention to it. It is a rather powerful and unbiased system that has led directly to astounding progress over the last century.

A while ago, I used EFT with a young lady who had such a severe water phobia that taking a shower was a traumatic ordeal. She told me last week that she now goes swimming three times a week.

I take your point about being results-oriented. I'm sure she is happy with her experience of your treatment.

A final point: anecdotal evidence gets dismissed out of hand as "unscientific." It may not satisfy the rigours of academia, but it can be impressive.

It can also be thoroughly misleading. The negative anecdotes tend not to be recorded so assiduously.

There's probably not much to be gained from arguing the point any further.

I agree with that I appreciated the discussion.