PDA

View Full Version : Modern research methods, traditional medical practice.



Matthew W. Luedke
16th July 2001, 16:15
A couple of weeks ago, I happened to hear on an NPR program that Harvard has started a research program for alternative or traditional medical therapies. Moreover, the NIH has a small office dedicated to this sort of research. I'm curious to hear what people think about this issue. Personally, I'm all for supporting this field of study, but some people interested in alternative medical practices are quite suspicious about these developments. I supposed I can understand why: they're probably afraid of axe-grinding researchers doing their best (or perhaps worst) to debunk things. But frankly, if we can be assured legitimate research is being performed, we could all benifit, particularly if it leads to effective alternative remedies being integrated into normal modern healthcare. What do you all think?

NoMan
16th July 2001, 23:54
Originally posted by Matthew W. Luedke
A couple of weeks ago, I happened to hear on an NPR program that Harvard has started a research program for alternative or traditional medical therapies. Moreover, the NIH has a small office dedicated to this sort of research. I'm curious to hear what people think about this issue. Personally, I'm all for supporting this field of study, but some people interested in alternative medical practices are quite suspicious about these developments. I supposed I can understand why: they're probably afraid of axe-grinding researchers doing their best (or perhaps worst) to debunk things. But frankly, if we can be assured legitimate research is being performed, we could all benifit, particularly if it leads to effective alternative remedies being integrated into normal modern healthcare. What do you all think?

In most cases, I've found modern research PROVES the old methods to be quite effective. For instance, the Chinese developed a system of curing people with obesity hundreds of years ago. This was all recorded, and they found that there were three distinct groups of obese people. The methods used to treat them were effective 80% of the time. Our "new" methods, (not sound science ones, but Jenny Craig, Slimfast, and other "lose weight quick") programs are 95% ineffective, with people gaining weight back in under one year. 80% compared to 5%. Hmm.... Other research done into herbs and various medicines of older civilizations also proves that they were correct. I'm sure there are a few "placebo" effects, but if the research is being done by a legitimate place, I'm sure they'll find out what most scientists are beginning to agree with. The "ancient" civilizations may have known more than we do.

Aaron Fields
18th July 2001, 21:47
The more research the better, old , new, who cares if we can determine that it works. No matter what they tell me Rino horn tea, or elixars made with mercury do you no good.

Medicine shows have been around since people started looking for cures, Jenny Craig included.

Bob Steinkraus
19th July 2001, 17:34
Mr. Luedke writes:
...some people interested in alternative medical practices are quite suspicious about these developments. I supposed I can understand why: they're probably afraid of axe-grinding researchers doing their best (or perhaps worst) to debunk things.

I suspect I know as well - they are afraid that modern science will reveal that 90% of what has been claimed about alternative medicine is nonsense.

Good research is aimed at trying to sift out the (possible) grain of truth from the (definite) barrel of bull hockey. Pharmaceutical companies would love to find a new, effective treatment for something. They would also hate to be sued or shut down by the FDA by peddling remedies that are either unsafe or ineffective. Between these opposing forces lies good scientific research.

Treatment that can't stand up to examination by someone who doesn't already believe in it is not effective treatment.

[possibly apocryphal anecdote]
Niels Bohr, who invented the first model of the hydrogen atom, had a horseshoe nailed up in his office. A visitor asked if, as a scientist, he really believed in such things. Bohr replied that of course he did not, but that he understood that horseshoes brought luck even if you don't believe in them. [/possibly apocryphal anecdote]

Science is like that. Scientists look for things that happen even when you don't convince yourself they are already there.

FAR more often than not, alternative medicine doesn't reach that standard.

Of course, people who are out to make money off you will say otherwise, as loudly and often as they can. Caveat emptor.

Matthew W. Luedke
19th July 2001, 19:00
I suppose I should throw in my opinion at some point, so here are my thoughts on the matter:

Whether or not they are effective, people will use alternative therapies. Therefore, from a strictly pragmatic point of view, it's vital that we gather information about their effectiveness, side-effects, dosage requirements, etc.

Furthermore, out of a body of traditional medical knowledge and the associated compounds traditionally known for some form of theraputic benifit, you're going to find a greater percentage of useful chemical treatments then if you just do chemical library scans for compounds that have a benifit. Therefore, research on alternative therapies is useful. The same applies to physical/surgical procedures.

We gotta also acknowledge the fact that some alternative therapies are just bad for you. Poison advertized as a panacea is poison none the less, and research might point that out.

I, frankly, think that people from the past knew a fair amount about medicine, although not about the reasons for the function of their treatments. So, we gotta give these treatments a fair shake and regard them with the promise that they might hold.

But, as far as the statement that "The 'ancient' civilizations may have known more than we do" goes, I think it's pretty much bunk in the case of medicine. If quality of health and length of life are measures of medical knowledge, then one need only look at rapidly rising lifespans and functional elderly populations in countries with modern medical care to see that we've got it better now than before.

But still, just 'cause we're doing better than our forefathers doesn't mean we shouldn't learn from 'em too :idea:

MWL

MWL

Spasemunki
19th July 2001, 19:04
A teacher I know at Harvard (he instructs in Tai Chi and Kung Fu for school recreational clubs) was involved with some of this research. He was particularly interested in the affects of Tai Chi on long-term diseases. His feeling was that research like this was needed, because so little was known about even very basic effects of these sorts of practices. Western observers had believed for years that you needed to pracitce these methods until you were a graying master before you would ever see a result. He thought that is was possible that the methods were more effective than this, but that it was difficult to isolate and quantify results. However, he felt part of the problem in analyzing traditional methods was seperating out which components work in which problems, or if a piece-wise analysis is even possible. With most herbal remedies, there are numerous compounds mixed together. Each one of these is composed of numerous chemicals. It is very difficult to decide if there is one or many of these compounds that has a thereputic effect, or if it is a combination of interactions. In physical methods (such as Tai Chi or Chi Gung), the problem is even more difficult. Say we were testing Ta Chi on people with RSI or something of that nature. Maybe three movements out of the form, done in sequence, are helpful. If you do the entire form every day, you're performing these three movements, plus 35 others. Not enough to get any benefit. Maybe if you did just those three movements 35 times every day, it would help. But maybe not. I think, as he did, that it's a good undertaking. But it is going to take a lot of serious effort to recognize, as someone said, what the grain of truth is, and how to most effectively employ it.

--------------
clay collier

NoMan
19th July 2001, 19:27
"The 'ancient' civilizations may have known more than we do" goes, I think it's pretty much bunk in the case of medicine.

Hence the reason I used "May have". In direct reference, some things that we have continually as a problem, such as obesity, wasn't a large problem with the Chinese population. As has been stated, we have little to know clue how chemicals react with each other inside the human body. So, maybe some things were good, maybe some things were bad. Certainly when looking at our cures for ADHD and Depression, our cures of "stock them up with drugs" hasn't been a very effective solution. Prozac had driven what were considered otherwise normal people to commit suicide, and drugs like phen-fen were taken off the market once we realized what ill effects resulted. As usual, my point wasn't quite clear enough. My point was not just about longer life/health, (and what's the big deal with a long life? As Bill Maher said, "Give me 64 Sammy Davis years over 150 Kenneth Starr ones), but other medical problems exist over the more imminent ones. I think the older Chinese remedies for coordination in older people, stress relieval, obesity, etc., were more effective than the ones we've come up with in modern society. That's my point.

Spasemunki
19th July 2001, 23:19
As NoMan points out, what it is important to recognize is that just because the total amount of knowledge that we have access to is greater now, that does not mean that it will always overlap. What is really important in looking at traditional medicines and techniques is to recognize where they have knowledge that maybe we don't have. Traditional medicine is probably not going to yield a better polio vaccine. But Tibetan medicine, for instance, has a reputation as being much more capable of treating arthritis and chronic joint pain that Western medicine has been unable to make significant improvements upon. So ancient culltures knew more than we do, but we also know more than they ever did. It just depends on the aspects you choose to focus on.



----------------------------
clay collier

Bob Steinkraus
31st July 2001, 20:34
Prozac had driven what were considered otherwise normal people to commit suicide

Why would an otherwise normal person be on Prozac?

Prozac is used to treat depression. People with depression are at higher risk for suicide. Therefore people on Prozac are more likely to commit suicide. QED.

Or rather, post hoc, ergo propter hoc.

pete lohstroh
31st July 2001, 21:42
Mr. Steinkraus made several very good points.

When interpreting epidemiological data relating prozac to suicides it is very important to consider the population under scrutiny. Were all of the study subjects predisposed to suicidal thoughts, etc.? In other words, the selected study subjects do not represent the total population of humanity. To infer that prozac is a causative agent in suicides is very irresponsible as there is a mountain of published data that suggests otherwise.

That said, it is interesting to note that our extended lifespans are due mostly to advances in public health (safe water) and education (germ theory). When a developed country's infrastructure falls apart (soviet union), it's public utilities and educational institutions suffer and, no surprise, projected lifespans decrease. Very complicated!

NoMan
1st August 2001, 01:29
Originally posted by pete lohstroh
Mr. Steinkraus made several very good points.

When interpreting epidemiological data relating prozac to suicides it is very important to consider the population under scrutiny. Were all of the study subjects predisposed to suicidal thoughts, etc.? In other words, the selected study subjects do not represent the total population of humanity. To infer that prozac is a causative agent in suicides is very irresponsible as there is a mountain of published data that suggests otherwise.

That said, it is interesting to note that our extended lifespans are due mostly to advances in public health (safe water) and education (germ theory). When a developed country's infrastructure falls apart (soviet union), it's public utilities and educational institutions suffer and, no surprise, projected lifespans decrease. Very complicated!

Yes, and mountains of data published by whom? For instance, let's look at milk. Now, we have all kinds of research telling us milk is ubra-fantastic and wonderful for your body correct? Who makes this research? The dairy industry. Now, we have tons of information coming in that milk is very harmful to your body. Who makes this up? The Soy Milk industry. Ah, so which one is objective? From what I've seen, the Soy Milk industry has pulled in more outside testimony. Does that mean that this evidence is to be believed? Not necessarily.

Frank van Meerendonk, a former English teacher, is now unemployed and on sickness benefit. He runs the Benelux section of Prozac Survivors Support Group (PSSG, founded in the United States in 1990. Its members all claim to have suffered serious adverse reactions to the so-called miracle drug.)

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has received a record number of complaints about the drug: 35,000 by 1996.

Btw, doctors don't know anything about neurochemical imbalances. They guess it all. They can't test it. Also, companies pay doctors to "recommend" their products, and prescribe them. I talked to a shrink friend of mine, and he said, "Only five more medications to go before I get a trip to Hawaii." While I'm sure there a lot of humor in the remark, it's also true. Since doctors can't, "know" if it works, they assume to try it out anyway.

http://www.breggin.com/bulletinprozac5.html

http://www.pssg.org/

There's some links with a lot of info about Prozac. Psychiatrists have no way of "knowing" if someone is depressed or not, or whether or not they are "imbalanced". So, yes, the drug is misprescribed thousands of times. From what I've seen in the psychiatry field, it works like this. "If they are here seeing me, they must have something wrong with them." (That's my experiences, but honestly, do you know anyone who's seen a psychiatrist and NOT had medicine prescribed?)

Bob Steinkraus
1st August 2001, 16:42
NoMan -

I am not sure I understand. If we cannot believe the milk industry if they say milk is good, and we cannot believe the soy industry if they say milk is bad, why should we believe the support group that says Prozac causes suicide?


Since doctors can't "know" if it works, they assume to try it out anyway.

Not sure how it works in the Benelux countries, but in the US doctors only prescribe drugs that have undergone the FDA approval process. This includes clinical trials and animal testing. Granted, these are not perfect, but this is a far cry from "let's dose up the next twenty people thru the clinic door and see what happens".


Psychiatrists have no way of "knowing" if someone is depressed or not, or whether or not they are "imbalanced".

If you are saying there is no objective, biochemical test that can diagnose clinical depression, yes, you are correct. The doctor cannot stick your finger and send the sample off to the lab, as he could for diabetes or high cholesterol. But most people agree that suicide attempts are a fairly good indicator that the patient is depressed in the clinical sense. And people rarely seek out a psychiatrist to tell him that everything is fine and they are happy with their lives. So it is likely to be true that nearly all the people thru a psychiatrist's door have "something wrong with them".

I am not sure how you could reach a diagnosis of depression without taking the patient's word for his symptoms. But much the same could be said about other kinds of diseases. My father, for instance, has nerve deafness. There is no diagnostic test for this - the doctor just had to take his word for it that he had trouble hearing, and that he was reporting his reactions accurately on the hearing test. Of course, he had my mother to back it up that he couldn't hear a thing!

Of course you are correct that people do research with all kinds of agendas. One group is out to make a reputation by proving that it works. Another is out to make a reputation by making the first group look like idiots. This is how research gets done. This is why the double blind study is the gold standard of science. If neither the patient nor the tester knows who is getting the experimental compound and who is swallowing sugar pills, you have reached an objective way of telling what really works without opinions fogging up the works.

The realistic response to some study is not to dismiss it out of hand, because it was funded by one group or another. The realistic response is "Let's have a look at the data and the methods." Flaws and fallacies tend to show up rather quickly if you look closely at Dr. Wunderlich's latest miracle cure for hangnails. If he has good, double blinded, statistically significant results, well and good. If all he has a hundred anecdotes, tell him to go back and try again.

Same goes for Prozac, milk, Laetrile, acupuncture, or pretty much anything else in health care. First, do no harm. Then, prove it works. Only then do you get to start composing your acceptance address to the Nobel Academy.

NoMan
1st August 2001, 17:56
I am not sure I understand. If we cannot believe the milk industry if they say milk is good, and we cannot believe the soy industry if they say milk is bad, why should we believe the support group that says Prozac causes suicide?

True, but did you follow the links? There was research on there from independant sources that listed the various problems with the reactions of prozac and other drugs. Meaning, there's research on both sides. The word "independant" is the key word there. Research that is sponsored just doesn't work the same.


Not sure how it works in the Benelux countries, but in the US doctors only prescribe drugs that have undergone the FDA approval process. This includes clinical trials and animal testing. Granted, these are not perfect, but this is a far cry from "let's dose up the next twenty people thru the clinic door and see what happens".

Yes, it costs about 300 million dollars to get a drug approved. Let's look at one thing that's on the market right now. Artificial sweetners. In the lab, animals consuming aspartame died. Others animals in the lab developed brain tumors, pancreatic tumors, uterine tumors and mammary (or breast tumors). Aspartame [aka NutraSweet/Equal] is 10% methanol (wood alcohol) by weight. The problem with this is that it breaks down further in heat, and in the body, into the following wonderful substances: formaldehyde, formic acid, and a brain tumor agent, DKP. All the listed symptoms above are the result of formaldehyde poisoning, which in the case of people who were found dead from it, was present in toxic levels in the blood stream. The Institute of Medicine - National Academy of Sciences, has issued a statement against it. Should we believe them? So, why's artificial sweetner still there?

Prozac isn't much different. The drug companies pay money to the various groups, to protect their interests. The meat industry does this, the dairy industry does this, etc. Goes on and on.


If you are saying there is no objective, biochemical test that can diagnose clinical depression, yes, you are correct. The doctor cannot stick your finger and send the sample off to the lab, as he could for diabetes or high cholesterol. But most people agree that suicide attempts are a fairly good indicator that the patient is depressed in the clinical sense. And people rarely seek out a psychiatrist to tell him that everything is fine and they are happy with their lives. So it is likely to be true that nearly all the people thru a psychiatrist's door have "something wrong with them".

Yes, but I know people who were prescribed with anti-depressents for problems not related to depression in any way. Insomnia? Do you need prozac for that? The problem is that some doctors don't view prozac as having very dangerous potential side effects. Thus, they figure a misdiagnosis won't really harm the patient. Besides, with things like receptor site affinity, it would seem strange to me that thinking you can supplement a hormone by receptor site binding would work. Receptor site "downgrade" is the reason why drug addicts have to increase the dosages to get the effects. The same would seem to hold true for any seratonin related product. Indeed, the body loses its natural ability to produce certain hormones whenever it is supplemented with them, (such as testosterone for one example).


Of course you are correct that people do research with all kinds of agendas. One group is out to make a reputation by proving that it works. Another is out to make a reputation by making the first group look like idiots. This is how research gets done. This is why the double blind study is the gold standard of science. If neither the patient nor the tester knows who is getting the experimental compound and who is swallowing sugar pills, you have reached an objective way of telling what really works without opinions fogging up the works.

The realistic response to some study is not to dismiss it out of hand, because it was funded by one group or another. The realistic response is "Let's have a look at the data and the methods." Flaws and fallacies tend to show up rather quickly if you look closely at Dr. Wunderlich's latest miracle cure for hangnails. If he has good, double blinded, statistically significant results, well and good. If all he has a hundred anecdotes, tell him to go back and try again.

Same goes for Prozac, milk, Laetrile, acupuncture, or pretty much anything else in health care. First, do no harm. Then, prove it works. Only then do you get to start composing your acceptance address to the Nobel Academy. [/B]

Hehe, I'm not going for the Nobel Prize. Though the one million dollars sounds nice..... I'm just showing there are two sides to the coin.

pete lohstroh
1st August 2001, 20:52
Noman,
as a toxicologist, I study environmental estrogenic substances. Products made of soy are full of these. Evidence is mounting that they may be responsible reduced sperm counts and some cancers like their physiological analogs. I do my research for the NIH, Superfund, and NIEHS with your tax dollars (this is not a dairy industry conspiracy). got milk?

Any substance, when ingested in sufficient quantity, can be toxic. Prozac is a substance which can be (and has been) abused by patients and medical professionals. It has also provided help for people with severe depression and allowed them, with therapy, to eventually not need the drug.

I am not sure what you are reading but I recommend field-specific peer reviewed scientific journals or the ever-popular "Science", "Nature", "New Scientist", etc..

BUY MILK DRINK MILK BUY MILK DRINK MILK BUY MILK DRINK MILK

NoMan
1st August 2001, 22:44
"Noman,
as a toxicologist, I study environmental estrogenic substances. Products made of soy are full of these. Evidence is mounting that they may be responsible reduced sperm counts and some cancers like their physiological analogs. I do my research for the NIH, Superfund, and NIEHS with your tax dollars (this is not a dairy industry conspiracy). got milk?"

Hehe, yes. But I've seen studies done by the dairy industry, same as I've seen ones done by the soy industry. Like I said, it's hard to find good research these days. Probably the most outrageous one in terms of claims is milksucks.com Good to finally meet someone who does these studies. It's weird not knowing where your money goes.

"Any substance, when ingested in sufficient quantity, can be toxic. Prozac is a substance which can be (and has been) abused by patients and medical professionals. It has also provided help for people with severe depression and allowed them, with therapy, to eventually not need the drug.

I am not sure what you are reading but I recommend field-specific peer reviewed scientific journals or the ever-popular "Science", "Nature", "New Scientist", etc.."

I'll check it out. Any commentary on the various articles published against milk?

pete lohstroh
2nd August 2001, 00:08
Noman,
there are plenty of good "reasons" to avoid most homogenized milks though I do not claim to be well read in this area. I can't keep up with my own field as it is. I will list the ones that concern me most:

1) Antibiotics! These can kill beneficial gut flora and select for antibiotic resistant plasmids in pathogenic bugs. Tons and tons accumulate in waste stream and eventually get into water supply. Yikes!
2) bGH (bovine growth hormone). Who knows but, tumors do like the stuff.
3) Pesticide residues. Every time more sensitive bioassays are created, safe limits are reduced.
4) Cow feed made from animal sources. Livestock practices like this have allowed mad cow to proliferate. Kuru next?

For these reasons I am willing to pay for and drink organic milk. I do like soy milk as well but I think soy producers (Archer Daniels Midland?) have the best PR of all. A little soy goes a long way!