What do you think about nonconventional medicine? Ho do you feel about the use of nonconventional medicine?
Answer: I think the only angelic doctor is one that will set bones or a surgeon. If you catch a cold there are plenty of ways to preserve it from getting worse or clearing it up all together without any category of medication. In fact I have lone taken my son to the doctor once when he had a problem with his foot. The doctor didn't even back, a chiropractor fixed the problem. So to answer your question doctors do have their place but for the most member my family goes adjectives natural. We have an herbalist we see. And we can other go to a doctor if it gets serious, but it once in a blue moon does..
I like the argument from antiquity up there. Herbal remedies be never used in any controlled trials back after because they didn't have the methods science uses to determine whether or not something is effective. It is not easy to determine if a drug is causing an effect, and the people who used these herb may have had some things that really worked, since herb are drugs, but they had no way of knowing in the region of side-effects or if a drug, I mean herb, was the exact of an illness subsiding or if it would have subsided lacking it.
Other old methods of health are leeches, bleeding and purging, trepanning, etc. They enjoy also been around longer than modern medicine.
Nonconventional tablets means untested using rigorous scientific process. In other words they don't know if their treatment works or not. I think nonconventional medicine is a well-mannered way to make associates think they have control over their own vigour and that is why it is appealing. I have on the other hand to see a study that backs up the claims made by some of these CAM proponents. Herbs are the only Alt Med stuff that have any plusibility because herbs are drugs (albeit with an uncontrolled dose and next to who knows what other chemicals in the plant).
I love how herb are good because they're natural. Belladonna is an herb, but I won't drink it. Plants produce CHEMICALS. Some are inert in the human body and some are not.
I reckon when nonconventional medicine works it become MEDICINE.
The popularity of alt med relies on paranoia and the proponents of this stuff play on peoples paranoia to make tons of money. Alt Med is a multi billion dollar industry. It is is various ways bigger than Big Pharma..
We need alternative health methods. People are so feed up with the medical profession which cannot do much for them and is more interested in superficially eliminate symptoms while the cause continues doing damage (ensuring that you'll hold on to increasing your doctor's bank account).
We need conventional prescription in cases of accidents or when surgery is needed, but we can do totally lacking it in most other cases.
Alternative health therapy are in the UK and in Norway very soon allowed in certain hospitals, parallel beside conventional medicine. This is a big win! A giant step towards recognition. Homeopathy, acupuncture, kinesiology etc, are recognizable by the Ministry of Health in Norway. Consultations with such practitioners are reimbursed by the National Health Service surrounded by Switzerland, where the positive effect of such treatment has be recognized as just as powerful as conventional medicine.
Not many folks know that in the rest of the world.
It's time the rest of the world opened its eyes instead of believing blindly contained by what the pharmaceutics industry and the all powerful medical profession will have you believe (to protect their bread and butter, but not your robustness!).
Alternative methods will never pass the test of "medical proof" and it should not. It must not. The day it does, it falls back to the stratum of conventional medicine - becoming useless.
Alternative methods are customized and individualized for each client, because respectively client has different needs. People beside identical diseases or symptoms will need a different treatment or approach because the lead to is different. Therefore the treatment is not reproducible. It is too individual. This is the strength of alternative methods. We must refuse standardization through scientific trialling.
Does this answer your question?
All the best!.
I guess I kind of am between the first 2 respondents. I do a unbiased amount of home health stuff, like chamomile tea for stomach upsets, lysine for Herpes Simplex outbreaks, cranberry liquid for bladder infections, etc. I also use Aloe Vera for burns and other skin irritation, etc. But, I am pretty good at recognizing when I stipulation to see the doctor. The problem with some folks is they expect ANY cure, natural or doctor related to be instant and its not resembling ordering a burger. You get a cold, and contained by 8 to 10 days, it goes away, no matter what you do. A lot of remedies you do merely treats the symptoms. Most ailments will stir away on their own, with time. The ones that don't are obviously more serieus and maybe need medical intervention. I have never implied the radical anti doctor notion. They have thier place, as do unprocessed remedies. So called alternative "medicine" fails clinical trials repeatedly and is base on bizarre and fantastic ideology. It doesn't work, basically.
To the person above: What are you doing taking children beside colds to doctors anyway? Everyone gets colds and everyone recovers, regardless of whether they whip quack "remedies" or not..
I've just read all the blogs here and wow! it's amazing how so plentiful people trust doctors diagnosis and especially that magic bullet or drugs.
Some statistics:
1 surrounded by 4 admissions into all US hospitals are because of misdiagnosis or side-effects cause from drugs.
96% of all cancer patients die. So chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery, being the simply options for allopathic cancer treatment , has a 4% nouns rate. This is a successful treatment for cancer? I would say that this form of treatment is very unsuccessful but make a lot of money for the pharmaceutical firms. Isn't it odd that an institution such as the FDA regard this form of cancer treatment as "successful"? Are a few palms being greased in the FDA or what ?
A recent study at a Chicago Hospital(John Hopkins, I think) asked adjectives the doctors and specialists there whether they would want chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery as treatment if they had cancer. 75% of adjectives doctors and specialists said no, they would not take this option. Do they know something we don't ?
Trouble is everyone runs for a pill to cure this or that and they trust everything said by the drugs companies. Look at Vioxx, a supposed successful drug which help Alzheimer's - that was banned lately because Merck didn't tell the truth about the effects on the heart. Consequently general public died of heart attacks caused by this "pill". Look at Galadrin - a drug for schizophrenia - this drug destroys your kidneys!!
If you don't beleive me go to Reuter's Health and hold a look.
And how is it that all these drugs suddenly fail out at hand and kill people. How is it possible - beside all these double blind crossover test next to placebos - and all the millions that are spent ensuring that the drug works and is past the worst. How is it that there so many drugs out at hand that are so unsafe or don't work. Aren't the FDA supposed to be the watchdogs? More greased palms perhaps.
Trouble is no one bothers to look at the evidence.
Never mind.purely take a pill, eh?.
Manufactured meds. have single been around for a short time, but intuitive herbs have be here since the begining!!