Quote:
|
don't tell me about how drug companies are hiding the fact that alternative therapies are better...they think that if someone claims that a particular treatment helped them, that's enough.
|
That's not what I said. Alternative therapies are not necessarily 'better' - they are a different healing modality and each has its place. No, it's not 'enough' for the FDA to embrace these methods. But, it IS 'enough' for people to be able to pursue these modalities if they so choose, with no interference from the medical establishment.
Alternative therapies often work very well for prevention and even for facilitating healing, according to the claims by many people. Has this been proven by scientific method? In most cases, no. Most of these claims are anecdotal, for 2 simple reasons: 1.) In cases of alternative healing, the patient often utilized a variety of alternative therapies, so it's next to impossible to isolate which therapies were effective and which weren't. However, to even attempt to isolate individual therapies is to miss the point of 'wholistic' medicine which, guess what, sees the person as a wholistic entity and cannot be reduced to individual components. It's an entirely different paradigm and does not fit into the allopathic paradigm. 2.) Most studies are funded by pharmaceutical companies. They have no interest in studying herbs and other natural substances which cannot be patented. Sure, most drugs were derived from natural substances, but a component of the substance has to be isolated to be considered a drug, and only then can it be patented. Natural therapies, on the other hand, work on a principle of 'wholeness' and favor 'whole' foods and herbs in their natural state. Again, it's a completely different paradigm and one cannot be forced into the other. It is useless to compare the 2 approaches. Natural herbs would never act as quickly in an acute situation as a drug. However, neither do they have the degree of side effects that drugs have. For those who see the value of both, it's a matter of determining the appropriateness according to the situation and the inclination of the patient.
My entire point is not that drug companies have to embrace alternative medicine - that would be ridiculous since there's no way they could regulate it, and it doesn't fit the paradigm. My point is simply that they should not PROHIBIT people form pursuing alternative therapies if they so choose.
Alternative therapies are certainly not for everyone. But its very nature, alternative medicine requires a more active role on the part of the patient. The patient works together with various practitioners and has a greater degree of responsibility and control over his/her healing process. Many people do not pursue alternative methods until they've been given a death sentence and given up on by the medical establishment. There are countless stories of people practically on their deathbeds with cancer, who, in desperation, pursued some seemingly 'radical' alternative protocol, and are alive and vibrant many years later. I've met some of them in person.
The medical establishment continues to call those cases 'anecdotal.' OK, no problem with that. But when they post these stories on quackwatch and completely ridicule them, as if those stories are all bogus, that is crossing the line! It is none of their business if some people chose to pursue alternative therapies! I can only surmise that they do it because it's bad for their business. Why else would they care? And don't say it's because they are trying to 'protect' people - most of these people ALREADY tried the conventional route and, guess what, it didn't work. I do not expect allopathic doctors to embrace alternative methods. But they should at least be neutral. They should offer their own protocol, but if someone chooses to try alternative methods, advise them against it if they feel so inclined, but NOT try to make it illegal for them to do so!
I have received acupuncture many times over the years. The last time I went to an acupuncturist, he refused to treat me unless I went to an MD and got a diagnosis FIRST. I was outraged! Why should I be REQUIRED to go to a particular type of practitioner that I don't want to go to? I had already chosen acupuncture. I should have had that freedom. But no, the medical establishment is now trying to regulate something they don't even believe in!
About 20 years ago, the FDA took L-Tryptophan off the market because about 10 people died. It was traced to a single bad batch. How many bad batches of drugs have there been? Of meat? Did they take meat off the market? No. Look at how many people die from side effects of drugs, and even from drugs used properly.
It's completely biased and yes, they are indeed ATTACKING the natural health industry. Because the industry is a threat to them.
No one would deny that in an acute situation such as a heart attack, car accident, gunshot wound, etc., modern medicine is a miracle worker. Yet the medical establishment continues to deny the reality of the countless people who have been healed by utilizing natural therapies. Again, they don't have to approve these therapies - but they should not be scoffing at them either. That is completely uncalled for and just shows a lack of understanding and respect for those who have worked very hard, and SUCCEEDED in their healing process, often when modern medicine had given up on therm. Both approaches have their place!
And no one, even those who believe in natural methods, would ever want the drugs-and-surgery options to be taken off the table. ALL those options should be available. Different people may choose different healing protocols.
I'm just saying the allopathic establishment should allow alternative medicine to have its own place, and not interfere with it, and let people choose for themselves. The AMA/FDA should not have a monopoly on healthcare. There are many who would choose allpathic in acute situations but never for degenerative conditions. They should have that choice.