Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine

quote:

---

One of Naturopathy's central themes is the idea of the "vital force", a mystical energy force described by Canadian Naturopath Dr. Andrea Hornyak N.D thusly:

---

Fortunately we are going to disagree on that. The ND's I have dealt with focus on prevention and helping the body heal itself. No mention of vital force. As pointed out before, Naturopaths that are licensed are licensed as independent practitioners. Just as independent MD's have different philosophies in their practices, so do naturopaths. As I've said before: I have no intention of taking up the cause for every naturopath or naturopathic site.Again I don't use homeopathy. Just like I can tell my MD I don't want surgery, I tell an ND I'm not interested in homeopathy.

quote:

---

Tell us again why Naturopathy should be given any credence whatsoever.

---

Because the concept is good, IMO.Again I don't feel it is an all or nothing proposition. I use what I need from my MD and I use what I need from my ND.

quote:

---

Why don't you answer nator's question?

---

What question?

Well since this isn't a chat forum, I was busy wading through your response and writing a reply to you before I was able to read her post.Once I was finished with my response to you, then I moved on to the next response to my post which was nator's. I then composed a response to nator with an answer to her question.Needless to say, I have answered her question.

quote:

---

If you synthesise L-Ascorbic acid, then it's identical to the natural form.

---

So if plane-polarized light is shown through L-Ascorbic acid and the natural, then it rotates the same direction. Correct?Is this true for any L- or D- form of vitamin or molecule? The L- would rotate the same as the natural and the D- form would not? (If I understood that right, anyway.)

quote:

---

The thing is, this "vital force" is a basic tenet of Natuopathy that, as far as I can tell, is taught as such in most, possibly all schools of Naturopathy. Disease occurs, according to Naturopathy, when the "Vital Force" is "out of balance". Naturopaths are supposed to be helping their patients "free" their "Vital Force" so that health and "balance" can be restored and maintained.

---

I'm not really sure why you're so hung up on the vital force issue. This excerpt is from an article that MBG provided in the last thread. So they call the power to self-heal "the vital force". These methods are not part of western medicine, so they are going to pick up the terminology of the culture of the method. Would you rather they call it "the healing force"?You don't agree that our bodies do the healing?
What is the physical healing process? Inner-Dialogue

quote:

---

But PD, the fact that schools of Naturopathy actually teach that Homeopathy actually has any value whatsoever should give you pause, should it not?

---

Am I reading these studies (found in PubMed) wrong or did the homeopathic treatment show an effect different from the placebo? Homeopathic arnica therapy in patients receiving knee surgery: results of three randomised double-blind trials.Anti-inflammatory, antinociceptive, and gastric effects of Hypericum perforatum in rats.Reliéva, a mahonia aquifolium extract for the treatment of adult patients with atopic dermatitis.If that is what they are saying (and that is how it reads to me), then your comment that homeopathy is "a thoroughly debunked, utterly quack idea" is questionable.Again, the average person is told to heed the studies. MBG said PubMed is no secret. So I've used PubMed and it shows that, at least in these instances, the homeopathic treatment isn't useless.I'm sure that MBG can dig up studies where the outcome shows it makes no difference, but doubt in your absolute position has already been cast for the average person.Remember all the wonderful threads dealing with absolutes? All I have to do is find one example contrary to your statement. You may have 10 studies for your point and only 3 against, but for the average person you've lost credibility. You have a better chance of success in this issue if you acknowledge those studies that are contrary to your position. By success I mean you are able to teach your opponent something new or important, instead of causing them to dig in.If you just want to score points by having more studies in your favor, then more power to you and MBG. You can crow winner, but you haven't accomplished much if you and your opponent still spout the same absolutes.I've already acknowledged that the CAM system needs work and that there are quacks. I still feel there are concepts that are worthy of consideration. I don't plan to argue absolutes in this issue. There are too many variables.You and MBG can scoff at our ignorance, but I can live with that. If you ever really want to discuss specifics with the idea of possibilities, then I'm open; but we already know we aren't going to agree concerning all encompassing statements.I toss in the towel. You're the winner. Enjoy! Musings of an Allopath

Very informative, thank you.I don't suppose there is any resource available where the average person could check out this issue concerning vitamins.This is one issue that is used as a selling point for those pushing their "natural" vitamins. They tell people to watch for a specific type or the L- etc. to identify a synthetic. I can't remember the various warnings or if L- was one of them, but the implication is there.Thanks again for the info, gives me something to think about.

quote:

---

Nope. None of these studies was properly designed.

​

All 3 are methodologically weak. Fatally flawed, if you will.

---

And you are who?
Again you give me nothing, not even links.How are those specific studies weak?
Why are they in PubMed, which you recommended, if they are flawed?Since your reviews are dated 1991, 2000, and 2001; I can assume they aren't dealing specifically with the studies I provided.
The studies I provided are dated 2005, 2006, and 2007.Again, average me will reject your reviews because they are older than the dates on the studies.Also when I am forced to search on my own and find your source, I find additional information."The Methodological Quality of Randomized Controlled Trials of Homeopathy, Herbal Medicines and Acupuncture." International Journal of Epidemiology. 2001. 30(3):526-31.Your quote which comes from the findings: Here's the description: So besides being old, it has nothing to do with the studies I provided.Again using your source, I notice that there are clinical trials listed for 2003-2007.One of the studies I provided was on arnica concerning postoperative swelling of knee surgery. Your source has a listing for a study concerning arnica dealing with tonsillectomies.Description: Findings: Do you understand yet, that by not providing links and quoting just the findings of old reviews as though they pertain to all of homeopathy, causes you to lose credibility.In your attempt to show that everything is "bunk", you overlooked the review of one of the studies I provided.Brinkhaus B., Wilkens J., Ludtke R., Hunger J., Witt C., Willich S. Homeopathic arnica therapy in patients receiving knee surgery: results of three randomised double-blind trials. Complement Ther Med. 2006 Dec;14(4):237-46. Epub 2006 Oct 13.Description: Finding: So as an average person, what I see is someone more concerned with winning an argument than giving us useful information or helping us to clearly understand so we can make a rational decision.This is usually when we smile and excuse ourselves to get some punch.

Unfortunately MBG isn't getting the hint. The science people in this discussion don't understand why the layperson doesn't see what is obvious to them (science people). I'm trying to show, as you finally commented on, what the layperson sees and how they view what's thrown at them. Obviously I can't speak for every single layperson, but I think I can give a general idea.As far as homeopathy, the idea behind it hasn't impressed me enough to look deeper; so it should be easy to show me that it is "all bunk". But I haven't seen anything so far that would enable me to say without a shadow of a doubt that it is "all bunk".

quote:

---

Well, judging quality takes familiarity with both the subject area and with the proper protocols for conducting double-blind placebo-based trials.

---

Which is true of any profession. What's obvious to me in my profession or hobby isn't obvious to those outside of them.I've already made it clear I'm not a scientist, although I have worked with scientists. Scientists with opposing opinions are not uncommon. So how does the layperson discern between the two consistently? We don't know the capability of the people on this board any more than those in the studies. Just because someone is a scientist doesn't mean they are a good one. That goes for any profession.While MBG is not concerned about how she measures up in my eyes, she missed the point I was trying to make. How can I tell if someone is a good scientist or not? On this board, all we have is how one presents their information and arguments.Telling me to use a specific source, but when I find support for the opposite side; the report is still not acceptable and only then is it revealed that the source makes no guarantees. In my mind this means it makes no guarantee for the other side either. Again, I'm at ground zero.It would make more sense to me to actually address the opposition's studies. Show how to read it, if there is somewhere else to look for more specifics, show it. Give us the tools to function if that is even realistically possible in this issue.One thing I enjoy about being a secretary is that I have worked with a wide variety of people. (preacher, mechanics, engineers, chemists, coaches, doctors, generals, admirals, senators) I love asking questions. I consider a good job experience as someplace I can learn something. Since I work with coaches now, they aren't a good source of information for this issue. I'm trying to help the scientists understand why their arguments don't seem to be making a dent, why we aren't jumping on your bandwagon.When my daughter was in high school, she had a math teacher who was unable to help her understand when she had problems. His problem was that he just kept repeating his answers to her questions the same way he stated them originally, which is what she didn't understand.Sometimes we have to change our approach to help others understand.

quote:

---

I looked at those 3 studies myself. Have you read them?

---

Since you won't provide links to what you are reading or quoting, I have no idea if I'm reading the same thing you are.Provide the flippin links!!!!!

It is courteous to provide the links instead of making people google and hope they are at the same site.This is the link I provided in Message 130 concerning the knee surgery. Homeopathic arnica therapy in patients receiving knee surgery: results of three randomised double-blind trials.The quotes you provided are not found at that link.Now if there is something else I need to click on to get more information on this study, it would be nice to know.That's why providing links directly to the site of your quotes are very helpful at keeping everyone on the same page.I've already expressed that I haven't had chemistry 101, I'm not a scientist, and that laypeople aren't familiar with studies. Like I told Percy, I like to learn. Unfortunately, I don't feel that you are trying to help anyone learn.This issue isn't important enough for me to waste any more time in discussion with you.If you wish to crow winner, go for it.

quote:

---

I'm assuming you don't want to pay and I'm assuming you don't have access to a University library (which would give you access to their subscriptions), so a link to the paper is useless.

---

It is also courteous to let people know you are quoting from something that the average person can't access, instead of implying that we just need to have the strength to google.Good Luck!

Well since we're both done with MBG, have you ever looked at Dr. Rath's research?
His research deals with vitamin C.His Illioforte™ formula for digestion had a very interesting result for me although my husband and I didn't care for his basic vitamin program.I also like Dr. Mercola's site. Have you read any of his books?
His practice is actually about 2 hours from me.
Very tempting.

I showed his supplements to my licensed ND's. They saw no problems with them.Cancer is one of those issues that it is hard to say what one will do until faced with it.His basic vitamin formula didn't have enough of what I needed.I had some digestion issues and my ND didn't feel the digestion formula would not be detrimental. What is interesting is that the digestion formula had an unexpected affect.I had a mole (according to MD's) on my ear that appeared after a life threatening tubal pregnancy exploded. The mole (about 1/4 wide) stayed for about 10 years. My MD's never said anything during physicals, so a few years ago I finally asked about it and was sent to a dermatologist. The only way they could analyze it was to remove it, which would leave a hole in my ear. I didn't fancy that, so didn't have anything done.When I started taking Dr. Rath's vitamins and we were doing the recommended routine which meant taking several of his formulas. After a month I noticed that the mole was getting smaller. I didn't anything of it. As I said the basic vitamins did have enough of what I needed so we adjusted what we were doing. I stopped all, including the digestion formula, but one after finishing the bottle, which lasts about a month.By the time I stopped the mole was smaller than the first time I had noticed the size change. Still didn't think anything of it. Once I stopped I noticed after a month that the mole was getting bigger. So I started using the vitamins again one formula at a time to see which had the affect. The digestion formula had the affect.I continued to use the digestion formula until the mole was completely gone and then one month longer and then stopped completely. The mole was gone and it hasn't returned in the past year.I tried to talk with my MD about it but he doesn't remember the mole and I never brought the mole to my NDs attention before it was gone.Was it really a mole? Don't know. But now it is gone and I don't have a hole in my ear. I don't use any of Dr. Rath's vitamins currently. They are rather expensive, but some of his concepts are interesting.The vitamin C levels are "low" because you end up taking several of his formulas which all have vitamin C in them.Much as we would like to have people do research just for the sake of doing research, people need to eat. They work to earn money.As I've said before, I'm not really an all or nothing type of person. I glean information from several places and Dr. Rath does give me something to think about. More questions to ask.

Cholesterol is another one of my issues, although not extreme. I don't take medication. I did find that cutting sugar out of my diet lowered my cholesterol to a healthy range. Unfortunately I had a sweet tooth. My MD said I just needed to lose weight. Oddly enough the weight went down and the cholesterol went up. I did not take supplements of any kind at that time and had not cut out regular sugar yet.MD said it was hereditary and wanted to put me on pills. I preferred to try and figure out why my body was making too much cholesterol.I use stevia now in as much of my cooking as possible. The stevia doesn't affect my cholesterol. Haven't been able to bake with it yet. I don't crave sweets anymore, but when the holidays roll around, I'm in trouble. I did find his views on cholesterol and vitamin C interesting. I have to take vitamin C to keep my gums in shape.

quote:

---

I have stopped using fluoride toothpaste, and I have stopped giving it to my daughter. Fortunately our water is not fluoridated.

---

I've found it hard to find unfluoridated toothpaste in my area.When I was a kid the dentist always touted the wonders of the fluoridated water when he checked my teeth. I never had cavities. Still don't. Unfortunately for him, I grew up on a farm with well water and I avoided drinking the school water because it tasted awful.