Homeopathy, Chiropractic and similar "alternative" views
Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8
I have always wanted to help people and be kind to them in their distress. So, being a physician was the best option I had.
How you learned: I did extensive education, specialized degree and training, by doing Bachelor of Homeopathic Medicine and Surgery (BHMS) (a regular full-time 5.5 years of medical degree course) from prestigious ‘Homeopathic Medical College and Hospital’, Chandigarh. I passed out in January 2003 with flying colours and stood 3rd in the final BHMS exam.
GenesForLife wrote:The degree is legit, I can vouch for that, the Govt.of.India does approve it.
GenesForLife wrote:to the extent of making potentially libellous accusations against conventional medicine and to declare on a whim the whole science of immunology, microbiology, physiology so on and so forth wrong.
When we will realize that the "science" of medicine defined efficacy of treatment by the elimination or reduction in specific symptoms, even if these symptoms are themselves defenses of the body. This "efficacy" is akin to unscrewing a warning light in your car and asserted that you've a "scientifically proven" method of treating cars that are sick.
generalsemanticist wrote:I found this interesting quote in a comment here.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rug-deathsWhen we will realize that the "science" of medicine defined efficacy of treatment by the elimination or reduction in specific symptoms, even if these symptoms are themselves defenses of the body. This "efficacy" is akin to unscrewing a warning light in your car and asserted that you've a "scientifically proven" method of treating cars that are sick.
generalsemanticist wrote:I found this interesting quote in a comment here.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rug-deathsWhen we will realize that the "science" of medicine defined efficacy of treatment by the elimination or reduction in specific symptoms, even if these symptoms are themselves defenses of the body. This "efficacy" is akin to unscrewing a warning light in your car and asserted that you've a "scientifically proven" method of treating cars that are sick.
This resonates with me. You are correct when you say double blind studies verify efficacy of drugs however, this should not be confused with good heathcare. People involved in AM are much more interested in healthcare, not merely getting rid of symptoms with toxic drugs.
generalsemanticist wrote:I found this interesting quote in a comment here.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... rug-deathsWhen we will realize that the "science" of medicine defined efficacy of treatment by the elimination or reduction in specific symptoms, even if these symptoms are themselves defenses of the body. This "efficacy" is akin to unscrewing a warning light in your car and asserted that you've a "scientifically proven" method of treating cars that are sick.
This resonates with me. You are correct when you say double blind studies verify efficacy of drugs however, this should not be confused with good heathcare. People involved in AM are much more interested in healthcare, not merely getting rid of symptoms with toxic drugs.
GenesForLife wrote:
Drugs such as antibiotics, antiretroviral drugs and several anticancer drugs deal not with symptoms, but the cause of the disease, so that eejit who made the quote has no clue about what she is commenting on.
GenesForLife wrote:What pathogenic diseases are statins prescribed for? <facepalm>
Statins also treat one of the causes of atherosclerosis, in the sense they block an enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase , which reduces blood cholesterol, therefore lowering the risk of plaque buildup in the coronary artery, now, what symptom do statins treat? they treat a cause.
generalsemanticist wrote:GenesForLife wrote:What pathogenic diseases are statins prescribed for? <facepalm>
Statins also treat one of the causes of atherosclerosis, in the sense they block an enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase , which reduces blood cholesterol, therefore lowering the risk of plaque buildup in the coronary artery, now, what symptom do statins treat? they treat a cause.
You do not know the cause of atherosclerosis. This is the logic;
1. your chloresterol readings are high
2. this drug has been proven to lower it
3. take this drug
But doctor, why is my chloresterol reading high?
Don't ask questions, just take the drug.
generalsemanticist wrote:GenesForLife wrote:What pathogenic diseases are statins prescribed for? <facepalm>
Statins also treat one of the causes of atherosclerosis, in the sense they block an enzyme called HMG-CoA reductase , which reduces blood cholesterol, therefore lowering the risk of plaque buildup in the coronary artery, now, what symptom do statins treat? they treat a cause.
You do not know the cause of atherosclerosis. This is the logic;
1. your chloresterol readings are high
2. this drug has been proven to lower it
3. take this drug
But doctor, why is my chloresterol reading high?
Don't ask questions, just take the drug.
generalsemanticist wrote:GenesForLife wrote:
Drugs such as antibiotics, antiretroviral drugs and several anticancer drugs deal not with symptoms, but the cause of the disease, so that eejit who made the quote has no clue about what she is commenting on.
What about research into why people get cancer and preventing it? What IS the real cause of cancer? Are you saying that the cause of cancer is cancer cells??
Shrunk wrote:generalsemanticist wrote:GenesForLife wrote:
Drugs such as antibiotics, antiretroviral drugs and several anticancer drugs deal not with symptoms, but the cause of the disease, so that eejit who made the quote has no clue about what she is commenting on.
What about research into why people get cancer and preventing it? What IS the real cause of cancer? Are you saying that the cause of cancer is cancer cells??
Are you saying no one is researching the causes of cancer? When was the last breakthrough in cancer research produced by a homeopath or naturopath?
Would you suggest that, until we know with certainty the cause of every single cause of cancer, we should just let people die untreated?
FACT-MAN-2 wrote: It strikes me that you guys are arguing past each other. Homeopathy and Naturopathy are strategic methods that work in the long term, if indeed they work at all.
Practitioners of these medicines dot not promise results tomorrow, although in some cases things can happen rather quickly.
Alopathic medicine typically acts quickly, saw off a guys leg, replace a kidney, remove a tumor, flush the blood, repair a broken bone or cut flesh. One doesn't really compete very well with the other owing to their fundamental temporal differences.
In alopathy, drugs are the preferred method of treating organic issues. All drugs have side effects (listen to the ads). But they usually work quickly. The Homeopath or Naturopath is limited to a much slower acting set of tools in their toolboxes. Their treatments take longer.
One of our more noted rebel MDs is Dr. Andrew Weill, who teaches at the University of Arizona and operates a large clinic. He started out a Harvard with Timothy Leary and after LSD had a life in which he was known as "Babba Ram Dass" and was a noted guru type. After 20 years of that he quit it and moved to Arizona and started his clinic and became Dr. Andrew Weill. In the course of things he built some major facilities at the UA school of medicine, started some new schools, wrote a number of best selling books on medicine and health, and is in high demand today as a speaker and as a practitioner.
I think Weill is among the best doctors we have practicing today. He is trained and educated in allopathic medicine and learned in other medical ways and in nutrition. He's the great blend East and West and modern "counter" medicine as known in the West. And that I think is what makes for the best kind of doctor. On top of that he's one of the nicest people you'd ever meet.
If ya'll haven't read Andrew Weill, you should.
Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests