Thread Drift

[indysteel]

It really was, Pax! I loved the area. Now we're an hour from home. I can't wait to see the cats!

How are you doing? You were on my mind this week. I'm so sorry times are tough right now.

[OakLeaf]

Indy, sounds wonderful.



I know I'm beating this drum to death, but there have been so many posts attacking so-called "alternative" therapies (meaning, therapies that were used successfully for thousands of years and have been suppressed more or less for the past hundred years) - and most of the bases for the attacks are (1) attacking classical, abandoned theories (similar to attacking north/western medicine because bleeding someone to balance their humours is patently unhelpful) and (2) claiming that they have poor success rates. I just have to re-emphasize that the success rates of other than north/western therapies, while they're admittedly often modest, are at least as good as the success rates of contemporary north/western therapies, and the intended devastation in lives (commonly known as "side effects") is nowhere near as great.

The subject comes to mind again because the literature has been reviewed yet again in the news.

[Owlie]

, and the intended devastation in lives (commonly known as "side effects") is nowhere near as great.

Uh, what?

I sort-of agree with you. There is a place for pharmaceutical intervention. There is also a place for *some* traditional therapies (though I have to wonder what you mean by that). Some traditional therapies (like some drugs) are crap. Some of them, like drugs, work for some/many/most people. I'm not sure that underhanded dealings by a pharmaceutical company, though, means that pharmaceuticals are inherently bad and that "alternative" medicine is therefore better. I'd also like to know which ones you have in mind that were "used successfully."

And I'm pretty sure that the goal of modern drug design is "greatest efficacy, fewest side effects." But that's just me and my "Western medical science" training, surely.

[indysteel]

Ugh. My husband's best friend lost his father unexpectedly in February. Now, this same man's mother is under hospice care. She's had an eleven (yes, eleven) year fight with breast cancer and, sadly, the cancer is finally claiming victory. It's been a long struggle, and I'm heartbroken about it. She's like a second mother to my husband and someone I've grown extremely fond of myself in a relatively short period of time. She's a gutsy lady and has handled much hardship and pain with incredible courage and grace. I cried myself to sleep last night and woke up at 3 a.m. only to start crying again. It arguably goes without saying, but cancer sucks.

[Pax]

(((((Indy))))), I'm so sorry for your pain.

Just heard my SIL's younger sister has Stage II breast cancer. She is 44, lives alone far from all of us, and found the lump a year ago when she had no health insurance. She recently got a job with benefits and had it checked.

[spokewench]

Indysteel So sorry for your friend's mother, you, your husband and your friend. The only thing I can say right now about this is it sucks! I'm tired of cancer taking the best, the brightest, and the loved.

[indysteel]

Thanks for your support, ladies. I feel sort of silly being as upset as I am. I haven't known her for long, but she's one of those people that just makes an impact right from the get go. She's sort of larger than life. Plus, I have a soft spot in my heart for her son. He's been so dedicated to her through her long struggle. He's such a good son. It breaks my heart that he's going to lose both parents in the course of about six months.

I'm so sorry about your SIL's sister, Pax. Cancer's bad enough. Add in health insurance issues and it really sucks. I sure hope her prognosis is good.

I think we need a group hug.

[OakLeaf]

Oh man, Pax, Indy, friends ... hugs and prayers to all who need them.

[shootingstar]

Well, there's enough denial going on right now....about my father. And to a certain point he's in minor denial. But what can we do?

But if we were to hammer at my father now about this point, that he won't live for many years now with prostate cancer at an intermediate stage..that will pull him down pyschologically and most likely he'll slide faster. He has not yet elected to take chemotherapy which will mean several wks. daily of chemotherapy. It won't stop cancer, it will only delay it and most likely chemotherapy will permanently and more quickly weaken him... Meaning his immune system will be weakened alot. He's 83, not 33.

And surgery will not stop it.

There are some complex challenges that lie ahead.. We just hope he will be still alive to witness a grandson's wedding next yr.

[goldfinch]

Indy, sounds wonderful.



I know I'm beating this drum to death, but there have been so many posts attacking so-called "alternative" therapies (meaning, therapies that were used successfully for thousands of years and have been suppressed more or less for the past hundred years) - and most of the bases for the attacks are (1) attacking classical, abandoned theories (similar to attacking north/western medicine because bleeding someone to balance their humours is patently unhelpful) and (2) claiming that they have poor success rates. I just have to re-emphasize that the success rates of other than north/western therapies, while they're admittedly often modest, are at least as good as the success rates of contemporary north/western therapies, and the intended devastation in lives (commonly known as "side effects") is nowhere near as great.

The subject comes to mind again because the literature has been reviewed yet again in the news.

Just because many modern medicines have questionable effectiveness does not mean that "alternative" therapies are effective. And think of all the wonders modern medicine has brought us. Like vaccines, antibiotics, birth control pills, surgery with anesthesia.

It is all about evidence. Tradition is not evidence. Old traditions, new medicine, all need to show that they are effective and that the benefits outweigh the risks.

http://whatstheharm.net/

[OakLeaf]

North/western medicine has been very effective in bleeding control and (until evolution outpaced the gross overuse of antibiotics) infection control. "Modern" medicine is a misnomer, since therapies with a historical basis have also evolved and changed and learned, and are equally "modern" as north/western systems that are less than 300 years old and lack long-term validation.

That's all. The major progress was over 50 years ago. Infection control and hemostasis are what equalized life expectancies between childbearing women and men - and ultimately resulted in women's greater life expectancies - and things have been getting worse ever since. Invasive therapies' (including medications') benefits at this point almost never outweigh the ... you said "risks," but it's not "risks," it's absolute harms.

It's not just one drug company. It's all of them, and the medical device manufacturers, and the hospitals, and the surgeons.

Tell me about anesthesia. Tell me how doctors are addressing the long-term cognitive deficits and personality changes brought about by anesthesia. (Or even how they know whether those problems are brought about directly by the anesthesia, or by the after-effects of the pain and terror suffered by an immobilized, anesthetized patient.) Show me the evidence that orthopedic surgery is more effective than physical therapy. <cue crickets>

The point of the article (and many many others including recent ones in the medical journals that I've cited before) is that the so-called "evidence" is at best cherry-picked, and often outright falsified.

[goldfinch]

It still is all about the science and the evidence. Yes, there have been strides in the last 50 years, especially with heart disease. There are many, many examples. Surgery has progressed with less invasive procedures with even hysterectomies done laparoscopically or rendered unnecessary by other medical treatment. Look at diabetes. My spouse is Type 1. In the 50 years he has had the disease there have been huge strides in treatment. New forms of Insulin. New delivery systems. Injections of Glucagon to rescue him from an insulin reaction. And maybe most valuable of all, the ability to test your blood sugar. Science brought this about, tradition did nothing. Show me the strides in altmed. I see none. Put it to the test. Otherwise it is meaningless or worse when people forgo what works or gives them better odds for what does not work at all. I know a woman who died of breast cancer. Breast cancer often can be treated successfully. Chemo is poison but the harm can outweigh the risks. She instead delayed standard treatment for a so called natural cure. She died what I believe was a needless death.

I too am critical of drug companies. I used to lobby for various health care reforms. Not all lobbyists are industry shills. I strongly supported the registration of all drug trials. I pushed for the funding and publication of replication studies. I believe that all data that comes from government funded research should be public. I supported government funding of research as it tends to have less bias than industry funded research. I like Ben Goldacre. He criticizes what needs to be criticized. Including altmed.

The goal is to improve medicine, not throw it away.

[OakLeaf]

Show me someone who is immortal as the result of north/western medicine before claiming anyone's death was needless or preventable. Every death is necessary. No death is preventable. Many deaths are unpleasant, but it's insane to intentionally make death more protracted and more unpleasant. And I am not throwing away one nanosecond of quality of life in the quest for miserable, debilitated immortality that is invasive medicine.

[Catrin]

Show me someone who is immortal as the result of north/western medicine before claiming anyone's death was needless or preventable. Every death is necessary. No death is preventable. Many deaths are unpleasant, but it's insane to intentionally make death more protracted and more unpleasant. And I am not throwing away one nanosecond of quality of life in the quest for miserable, debilitated immortality that is invasive medicine.

Hear ye, hear ye! I second this heartily.

[goldfinch]

Show me someone who is immortal as the result of north/western medicine before claiming anyone's death was needless or preventable. Every death is necessary. No death is preventable. Many deaths are unpleasant, but it's insane to intentionally make death more protracted and more unpleasant. And I am not throwing away one nanosecond of quality of life in the quest for miserable, debilitated immortality that is invasive medicine.

So would you forgo chemo if you got breast cancer?

We don't need the strawman of immortality.. Did I say anything about the quest for miserable, debilitated immortality? I too do not want a treatment that is unlikely to work and will give me lots of pain. But my friend who died without treating her cancer easily could have had 20, 30 or more years. Another friend who did have a double mastectomy and went through a year of chemo and radiation now has lived 10 years and has a very low chance of her cancer reoccurring. She certainly has no regrets of using unpleasant, invasive, treatment.

My father had unpleasant and invasive treatment for TB in the 1920s, pre-antibiotics. He survived and lived for many more years with no regrets about having a lung removed, his ribs around that lung removed, and living in a Sanitarium through his teenage years.

Some treatments are unpleasant yet yield good results.

But I do agree with Oakleaf's dismay over end of life care. There is lots to be done on that level. There is a mix of family needs and denial with the drive to do something that can end up with the system doing too much at great economic and personal cost. A study was done looking at how doctors die and far less "state of the art" care was done. We can learn from that work. End of life choices need to be carefully thought out ahead of time. It isn't easy. For example, you likely want to be ventilated if you have pneumonia, waiting for the antibiotics to work, are are expected to survive. But you might not want to be ventilated if you are dying and the pneumonia may simply hasten your death by a bit.