That's a good point, Wa'il. I guess if you guys would tell me specifically what you object to and why - and then what it is you embrace, and why. Don't just tell me that chiropractic "works," go on and tell me why you are convinced that it does.
Some of you are saying that you have become skeptical - so what is it that convinces you about something? What makes you decide that something works?

I think much of our medical advice skepticism comes from all the conflicting "studies." It seems that any medical study on earth has an equal and opposite study that insists it is more accurate than the last study. And if a particular study doesn't have a conficting study, just wait, it will have soon...

Coffee will kill you, coffee causes cancer, coffee prevents cancer, coffee causes heart problems, coffee prevents heart problems, coffee prevents diabetes, and so on.

In the above paragraph, replace the word coffee with fat, grains, tea, Splenda, or broccoli...take your pick. There will be any number of "experts" that present conflicting advice with funding sources that likely influences outcome.

Okay, jwc, so then what do you base health decisions on? What basis do you have for deciding what to do? It's sort of Part II to my question.

I've chosen alternative therapy over conventional because if anyone is going to experiment on my body, it's gonna be me, myself, and I alone. I've suffered at the hands of so-called professionals too many times. I've endured painful procedures, only to find out they didn't work or were unnecessary. I've been given drugs I didn't need. And I've been bullied, insulted, and talked down to too many times.

Yeah, I've had enough.

I read and try to balance opinions with a heavy dose of personal experience. For instance, no matter what they say about coffee, I’ve consumed it for 40 years and it seems to have done me no particular harm and I enjoy it. If someone decides it is doing me good, that’s wonderful, but it carries little influence in my decision making process. If some study says it is surely doing me harm, I would tend to ignore it.

There seems, at least at the moment, to be overwhelming evidence that fish oil benefits humans, so I do take supplements. If they eventually find that not to be the case, I’ll probably stop taking them and save some money.

No matter how harmful various studies claim a low carb diet is, it seems to benefit me. Therefore, I tend to be biased towards the studies that say low carb is healthy and I stay low carb. There seems to be quite a bit of evidence that some form of intermittent fasting is beneficial, so I am doing some of that—kind of a situation where it may be good, but probably won’t harm you even if it eventually is proven to be of no particular benefit other than helping lose a few more pounds.

Keep in mind the history of medical practices that were once accepted as fact and are now laughed at. Heard of anyone recently having large quantities of blood drained from them to cure whatever ails them? Bleeding was once the standard “cure” for nearly everything. Other historical cures were certainly worse than the disease that precipitated them, often killing the patient in the process. What view will historians have about statins or Viagra? It remains to be seen. Other ancient cures once disregarded and laughed at return to the forefront when they find there was actually something to them, such as applying leaches or maggots to wounds.

I disregard most any study that is funded by pharm companies or that seem to have built in agendas—like vegan groups doing studies on how harmful eating meat is.

It all can be quite confusing. We just have to keep weighing the changing evidence as best we can.

I think that science is supposed to change. We get new ways of finding data, they lead to new results, and we correct old results. That's how the process is supposed to work. As these improvements have been made and spread out, health and life expectancy have vastly improved.

So when people use that as an example as to why various pre-science or non-science methods (which often are nearly static over hundreds of years) are somehow better or more effective, it just isn't something I can agree with.

I mean, we dismiss low-fat eating around here, and it was certainly bad for me...but it helped a lot of people, some of whom stayed thinner than they started, and some of whom used it to essentially reverse heart disease. Not everyone has the issues with carbohydrates that people on this site do.

Great point!

I can tell you this, low carbing works for me, despite my current doctor, the media and a host of "concerned" friends and familes opinions on the matter. I do not have the gout, my kidneys did not fail, I did not have a heart attack, I am not mal-nourished, My cholesterol is good, my triglycerides are better, my BS is normal and ding dang it, I have lost 100 pounds of water weight! (sarcasm)

Also, I have kept it off by staying on ongoing maintenance.

This is a way of life not a diet.

I do not need more than 40 - 60 carbs a day. I need less than 40 to lose weight.

Saturated fats and oils actually increase my weight loss. Poly unsaturated fats are bad in the amounts listed as normal by most in the health field.

Soy in abundance is being proved to be somewhat detrimental to males especially.

I can probably shotgun a dozen more out there. I guess if you have specific questions that you are thinking about it would be a might bit easier to cite examples....

I'm not really arguing with you. My point is, conclusions WILL evolve. Just because there is “scientific evidence” for something, is no reason to believe that evidence will not change-it probably will. However, scientific evidence tainted by ulterior monetary or social motives, is hardly real evidence.

One day, they may indeed find that bleeding a person cures some particular disease. In that case, it was scientific evidence that started the historical trend when that first person was “cured.” Scientific evidence happened long before it entered the hallowed halls of higher education or medical laboratories. It has been a part of human history from the beginning. Much of alternative medicine does carry centuries of scientific evidence in its wake.

I go to doctors. I believe that mammograms are a good thing, as little as I enjoy them. I’ve had skin cancer spots removed by doctors. Without Nexium and allergy meds, I would be miserable a good part of the time. I have my child immunized and take him to his pediatrician for regular check-ups. However, my family tree has multiple autoimmune diseases that the medical establishment has no answers for-just thousands of dollars of test after test followed by a shrug of the shoulders. In my sister’s case, a lack of diagnosis meant, “it’s all in your head” (because we can’t figure it out and there’s nothing to prove you really are in pain). With me, they couldn’t say it was my imagination because I was covered from head to toe in a Vasculitis purpura rash for 6 weeks so they simply had to say “We don’t know.” It finally went away on its own with no medical treatment-I just got to pay lots to find out what all I didn’t have. I’m more than willing to listen to alternative medicine theories if they provide answers the official medical establishment cannot.

I’m still not about to accept everything someone tells me, just because they write MD after their name or completely accept the results of a scientific study, just because some part of the medical establishment says it's so. I discuss things with my MD, and he often comments on how "well-read" I am. Can't tell whether he appreciates it or not though. We've had many discussions about cholesterol-he wants LDL below 100. I tell him about my father and mother who are life-long cattle ranchers and both have total counts of over 300—and in their late 80s with no evidence of heart disease. They’ve had whole milk, cream, beef, pork, venison, eggs, or elk for every meal of their existence. He wants to do a “study” on them. He did say, “Well, maybe I wouldn’t worry about it either in your case.”

Weigh and balance.

Actually I do know someone who has a disease (forget the name of it) in which his body produces too many red blood cells and he has to be "bled" on a regular basis. Some of the "old" remedies sometimes work. Even today there have been cases where maggots are used to eat away dead flesh of severe burn victims because they are more efficient than techniques the medical profession has.

I can't remember the word for it either...Google results say polycythaemia or erythrocytosis (huh, maybe I didn't know that in the first place. I was thinking hemo-something. I think I was thinking of the word for too much iron in the blood - hemochromatosis).
Anyway, it can happen to babies also, if they are left attached to the placenta for a long time after birth. Staying attached like that actually helps babies in third-world countries where people are often close to anemic. It's not needed otherwise, but it's kind of trendy in the West now, and the babies sometimes end up with too many red cells, and have to be 'bled.'


Maggots are used by doctors for debridement of wounds. That never totally went away, but it has had kind of a renaissance lately. I've never heard of it being used for burns specifically, but that does make sense.
It's gross, but effective and interesting. I read a book once by a nurse (written in the 70s/80s) and she was talking about a homeless drug addict woman who came in with maggots infesting her nasty leg sores. The woman was depressed and felt like it meant she was nearly in the grave, so the nurse explained to her how much the maggots were helping her.

In the pre-revolutionary era, people suffered from cardiac disease just as they do now. The common treatment was bleeding. What this did was take pressure off the heart by reducing the body's blood volume. In effect, it was a way to reduce blood pressure. It became fashionable to 'have a bleed' regularly in hopes of preventing disease. So it became the treatment for most maladies. I think I read that George Washington died from a botched bleed.

Sorta like statins now? It helps in many cases but if you don't already have high blood pressure, it is unlikely to have a protective effect.

Traditional chinese medicine says disease is the result of stagnating Xi (chee). Since blood is under Xi's control, a common treatment is bleeding to drain the stagnation.

It's not one view against another, so I'm not sure which guys said what

For example, I personally object to doctors following the American Diabetese Association recommendations for diabetics. I've seen many diabetics eating the wrong things because it was recommended to them. High sugar and refined carbs, and reduced fat. There has been a few investigative reports about the ADA recently in Men's Health magazine and NYT.

This illustrates the point, I think, that doctors are not medical scientists. Practicing medicine is an applied science. It should follow the findings of scientists, not associations, like the ADA, which accepts financial support for endorsing specific products by specific sponsors.

I still respect doctors, don't get me wrong. I'll say the same thing about engineers belonging to the applied science feild, and should not be confused as scientists. They should put science into practical use, not treat an engineering lobby group recommendations as science.

Wa'il

Polycythaemia - yep that's the one. Thanks.

I will start by saying I AM A medical professional! I have been a nurse for over 20 years. As such I know that the practice of medicine is just that PRACTICE!
I have a few points:

1. Doctors are not GODS they are the product of their training, natural intelligence, compassion, caring , and years of practice. They are also in business. The practice of medicine feeds their families. I have found many dedicated DR's that eventually start the same lazy crap that older ones do: short cuts , impatience, rushing the labor with meds etc. its c/s now cuz who wants to be here all night when my kids are waiting for me at home. I wish OB doctors could have a better schedule (12 hours or something) because the 24 hour shift leads to medical mistakes.
2. My health is MY responsibility. I confer with my physicians about my treatment plan and uphold my part by providing data as needed ie my blood sugars , what meds I am on, and any exercise I am doing. In doing my own research (dr Bernsteins book for one) I established goals that I think will prevent the horrendous medical problems diabetics have. My goals are way stricter then the drs goals. basics are the same wt loss, exercise,and blood sugar control. BUT I use a strict goal of sugars like a non diabetic! the medical problems come from the elevated glucose circulating in my body why should a diabetics goal be fasting less then 120 when normal is 85-90 and why should my goal be after eating less then 200 when a non diabetic is less then 145.
3. I totally agree with the notion that pharma is the guide to medical care in the USA and thats a bad thing! along the same lines treatment of diabetes is not in the best financial interest of the primary care doc. There is no incentive to (except conscience and caring) keep us from the sequela of our disease. For each complication there are numerous visits, hospital consults ,treatments, and more meds!
   
4. Lastly socialized medicine has it failings but our system does also. We have no incentive to improve preventative medicine. What we do have is beautiful rebels who fight the fight for all of us! They Dr Atkins and Dr Bernstein for two bucked the mainstream medical community to bring enlightenment to diet and diabetes! I could just kiss em both (ok not Dr A because he is dead but you know what I mean)

Well thats my 2 cents. great topic Ysabella I have learned alot!

You nailed it! However there are a few doctors that have been fed up with the status quo and delved into the field of medical science and in doing so have changed the world.



Also, I take that a step further. They not only should not blindly follow associations, but big pharma as well. Many cases of Dr's providing scripts for meds they get a lickback on in one way or another...

These sponsors are very clever. They not only support associations, they also reach the doctors by offering samples etc in return for the Dr writing the script for their meds over the competition. They reach the general public through television ads etc... Then there is the big one. They also lobby and support politicians in return for favorable legislation. Talk about a 4 headed fire breathing monster!

And the lemmings march of the cliff in single file fashion....