Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Mittal)
    damn you careless fool, always analysing for reasons.

    Now why the hell would a Doctor want to note down my interests and hobbies? My name yes, but interests and hobbies? :rolleyes: and if thats so, she must be doing it for many pateints which would not be possible.

    The Doctor is well trained and I'm sure she has a very good memory.
    To mention further, while she was looking at my teeth and X-rays, she explained precisely what each thing on the X-ray showed, and how the braces will be fit in and the reason for all the procedures ... now that, I suspect, all Doctors won't do.
    hmmm, i jumped to conlcusion that your avatar may mean you are a medic or hopeful doc. you need to get past this illusion now. Even a medical doc with a really modest workload will see 10+ people a day. 50+ a week, 200+ a month, 1200+ every 6 months...

    is there something really special about youthat made this lady take an interest..? probablary not.

    Its simple we DO put these kinds of thing in your clinical notes - the notes most docs will see when they see you. And it will have under the title 'social history' your drinking and smoking habits, travel habits, what sort of house you live in, where you live, and even sports/activites you do.

    Yes she sounds a great doctor. she reads the notes before and makes the patient feel remembered and looked after. she explains the procedure to make the patient feel included, consulted, and informed.

    thats good medical practice. Its what all doctors should be aspiring to be like. She should be the rule rather than the expection to the rule if you get me
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mittal)
    some good points, Orthodox medicine has the advantage of developing medical techniques to diagnose and cure, but disadvantage that Doctors have an inability to distinguish between the body and the person when practising medicine.
    Well as I'm unable to distinguish between the body and the person when they're me I'm not very bothered.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tweetsy85)
    Well, it's natural in the sense that you don't use any chemicals etc.
    what makes you think chemicals are unnatural? Please explain just what is more natural about penicillin from a mould as against penicillin made in a factory?

    Science is not complete. We don't know everything. Especially in the field of Medicine. Science has not yet explained exactly what it is that makes us alive.
    Nor has your alternative mumbo-jumbo. Science does not claim to try to do that.
    I believe that there is a whole undiscovered science waiting to be discovered which explains what give us life - probably some kind of life-giving energy. How else can one explain the life-force in us all?
    What life force in us all? ~again, even if you are correct, what does that have to do with medicine of any kind?
    I disagree. Surely if something had no value and didn't work, it wouldn't have lasted as long.
    Who says "traditional medicine " has no value and doesn't work? it has immense value at making people feel better. It works very well to enable unqualified, ignorant and arrogant people to make money out of gullible fools. It has very little value as a means of curing illnesses, though.
    Also, the longer a subject has been around the longer its had to be perfected.
    Even if this is so, as the main purpose of "alternative medicine" is to get money out of people that isn't a point in its favour.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The difference between a factory-made substance and a natural substance is the factory-made one has to conform to health and safety laws and has to be tested for safety and efficacy, to make sure that it both does something useful and doesn't kill you in the process.

    'Natural' stuff doesn't have to, which makes it evidently safer and more efficient! Sorry, but I don't follow that logic.

    Astrology has been around since time began. It's still nonsensical ******** though.

    If alternative medicine is so useful, why don't we use homeopathy to cure broken legs? If you have a heart attack, why don't you get a reflexologist?

    The reason is because the things which are dealt with using alternative medicine are the things which are primarily subjective diseases. It doesn't cure broken bones, it cures headaches. Or it cures your belief that you have a headache through placebo effects.

    Things like the idea of 'holistic' practice is nonsensical. Holism basically says: we need to treat the whole person, not just curing the disease or injury. Sorry, but that's New Age mumbo-jumbo. If I go in to a hospital or go to my doctor, it's because I have an ailment of some kind. I don't want my whole body treated, I just want the disease or injury cured. When I had a serious sprain to my ankle, I went to hospital because it could have been a fracture. If it was a fracture, I don't want the doctor asking me how I 'feel', except if it is going to help with the treatment of the fracture.

    Bandages cure diseases, touchy-feely ******** doesn't. I can get that at home by talking to my family and friends. If I go to a doctor or a hospital, it's because I want treatment, not a shoulder to cry on.

    If you want to use alternative medicine, fine. But I don't want to pay for it through my tax money. It's nonsense. You've got only two types of medicine: reliable, working and safe medicine on the one hand, and 'alternative' on the other. My vote is for the first type.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tweetsy85)
    Although patients have the free choice, they are influenced by what they are told. It seems that most Doctors vehemently denounce natural medicine saying it has no scientific evidence to back it up. I don't know if that's true or not - I think more research should be carried out in this area. On the other side, it seems the natural medics are just as convinced against conventional means!

    Oh I forgot to mention that this lecturer used to be a conventional doctor. But then he became really ill and conventional medicine couldnt help him. They told him he'd die. So he turned to natural means and he completely recovered from his illness.
    I hear this every single day from alties. If it did actually help him, he could prove it through scientific means. Then it wouldn't be 'alternative' any longer.

    Doctors should and do denounce medicine that doesn't do anything. Whether it's faith healers or homeopaths or whatever, these medical treatments have been shown time and time again to have no scientific basis to them, and have little or no results beyond the merely anecdotal.

    Sorry, but when you're treating cancer or fixing broken bones, the anecdotal is not enough. You need scientific evidence.

    The way it works is that if you think you've discovered something which does work, you perform a test to see whether it does actually work or not.

    I'm involved with a group of people who help organise tests on all sorts of things like this - whether it's alternative medicine or paranormal claims. It's amazing the number of people who believe stuff like this without actually looking at the evidence.

    See: http://www.quackwatch.org
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    To be honest, I don't know what to think. It bothers me, as a science student, that u say natural medicine doesn't have scientific research to back it up. Is that a fact? I will try and search the scientific journals and databases for any sign of scientific backup to any natural medicine. What is true, is that as far as I have heard, natural medicine only seems to have lots of anecdotes and personal experiences of people who believe they were helped at times when conventional medicine could not help them. One example I heard of involved a woman being 'healed' from a leg that doctors said was beyond hope and wanted to amputate.

    (Original post by tommorris)
    See: http://www.quackwatch.org
    I found this comment from someone on the above website which could go 'for' the natural medicine argument:
    "[Western] medicine is responsible for countless numbers of deaths due to poor diagnosis, deadly drug interactions, using human beings as guinea pigs for new and improved drugs (only to find years later the damage many of these drugs have caused) and the 'instant fix', band-aid approach to healing."
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tweetsy85)
    "[Western] medicine is responsible for countless numbers of deaths due to poor diagnosis, deadly drug interactions, using human beings as guinea pigs for new and improved drugs (only to find years later the damage many of these drugs have caused) and the 'instant fix', band-aid approach to healing."
    Traditional medice is responsible for countless numbers of deaths due to non-diagnosis and poor diagnosis, deadly drug interactions, inexact drug administration, giving people old and ineffective or harmful drugs or treatments (people treated like this don't live long enough for any other damage to be found) and the long-term "if they live, claim the credit; if they die it's god's will" approach to healing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    It's not proved.
    Any benefits are probably from that whole placebo effect thing. (?)
    'I think [whatever alternative medecine] is gonna make me feel better; wow, i feel better.'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tweetsy85)
    To be honest, I don't know what to think. It bothers me, as a science student, that u say natural medicine doesn't have scientific research to back it up. Is that a fact? I will try and search the scientific journals and databases for any sign of scientific backup to any natural medicine. What is true, is that as far as I have heard, natural medicine only seems to have lots of anecdotes and personal experiences of people who believe they were helped at times when conventional medicine could not help them. One example I heard of involved a woman being 'healed' from a leg that doctors said was beyond hope and wanted to amputate.
    No, you're playing word games.

    Natural medicine is anything which comes from a natural rather than an artifical source. Aspirin is a natural-derived medicine.

    Alternative medicine is a set of treatments which refuses testing or continues to be used despite having been tested and failing (eg. homeopathy - which was shown to be nonsense back in the 80's). This is compared with evidenced-based medicine.

    "Western" medicine is a set of medicines that come from one specific type of source.

    If a 'natural' medicine is shown to work, that's great. It becomes evidenced-based rather than alternative. If Western medicine is evidenced-based, I support it. If it's alternative, I do not.

    The difference is, though, that the community of people who pushes natural medicine seems unable to find it within themselves to actually see whether any of their stuff works. Occasionally, an 'evil' Western pharmaceutical company will pick up one of the natural products, test it, package it and sell it, and the alties will say "See, it works!". (Disclaimer: my endorsement of the scientific method does not extend to endorsement of the unfair intellectual property laws which pharmaceutical companies utilise to 'lock up' innovations behind patents, but that is a separate issue.)

    The difference is, though, the pharmaceutical company has taken the time to actually test something.

    But look deeper at the Quackwatch website. Look, for instance, at the Therapeutic Touch practitioners. These guys claim that you can cure diseases, or at least ease pain, by waving your hands around people. It took Emila Rosa, an 11-year-old girl, not particularly long to debunk this. She got a bunch of Therapeutic Touch practitioners to see if they could actually detect her hands above theirs. They only got it right 44% of the time - 122/280. Guessing would be more likely to work.

    The socially-defined group of 'alternative' medicines - the stuff these people says work - has been shown not to work so many times. It's "boy who called wolf" all over again.

    Believer: "Homeopathy works! It's really cool!"
    Skeptic: "Ah, let's test this... No, it doesn't."
    Believer: "Okay, but reflexology works!"
    Skeptic: "Test it again. Oh, wait, it doesn't."
    Believer: "Chiropractic. That'll solve all the problems!"
    Skeptic: "No, it doesn't."
    Believer: "Acupuncture then."
    Skeptic: "Shut up, just shut up. Call me when you've actually got something that WORKS!"

    With all the alternative stuff, we've been told that this stuff will work loads of times, yet, time and time again, when tested, we're always disappointed.

    I don't have to take seriously every lunatic who comes up with a crazy idea about curing cancer or whatever. If you believe something extraordinary, prove it. The alternative people refuse to test these things. They ask us to take these things on faith and so on.

    With evidence-based medicine, you've got a paper trail. You can go to a research library and look up the results of the scientific and medical expriments which show that it works. It may be that there is an error, but the way to detect errors is through the scientific process. That's why doctors don't prescribe Vioxx any more. But without science, there would be no way to say "this doesn't work".

    (Original post by tweetsy85)
    I found this comment from someone on the above website which could go 'for' the natural medicine argument:
    "[Western] medicine is responsible for countless numbers of deaths due to poor diagnosis, deadly drug interactions, using human beings as guinea pigs for new and improved drugs (only to find years later the damage many of these drugs have caused) and the 'instant fix', band-aid approach to healing."
    While the holistic approach cleans your toenails or gets you to pray to Jesus while your heart conks out.

    If something works, it can stand scientific testing. If it doesn't, it won't. But, if you've got a medicine that doesn't work, and science says it doesn't, you can always market it as 'alternative'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tommorris)
    If something works, it can stand scientific testing. If it doesn't, it won't. But, if you've got a medicine that doesn't work, and science says it doesn't, you can always market it as 'alternative'.
    I totally agree about the 'alternative' medicine rubbish... take homeopathic medicine

    The joke with homeopathic medicine is it comes in 2 strengths, 6c and 30c, and the 30c is more diluted than 6c.

    Therefore, dispite the 30c being more dilute it is classed homeopathically as stronger!

    Also, the substances in the 30c have been diluted so many times that statistically you are less likely to contain one molecule of the ingredient you are buying.

    It's complete and utter total ********! Don't agrue this as there is not a shread of scientific evidence!

    Yes, natural medicine may provide cures for the future... Well done for separating natural and alternative medicines!

    However, I disagree with what you said above, i'm working at a pharmacy at the moment and a lot of what is given is totally ineffective but you'd hardly classify it as 'alternative'

    Explain why people are prescribed ineffective medicines that do not work... placebo effect, yes but more importantly it's MONEY!

    For example, why do doctors prescribe sodium chloride drops - it's salt water ffs - yet it was on a prescription which i saw with my own eyes, there's no evidence that that would do much good now!

    What about vitamins that havent been proven to work - vitamin E, no on is sure about?

    What about cough medicines that do absoulely nothing!

    These aren't evidence-based medicines but are hardly 'alternatlve'
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Revenged)
    However, I disagree with what you said above, i'm working at a pharmacy at the moment and a lot of what is given is totally ineffective but you'd hardly classify it as 'alternative'
    That's why I made the distinction. In as much as Western medicine is evidence-based, I support it. In as much as traditional/natural medicine is evidence-based, I support it. We could make these things better. And, conversely, when Western medicine is used without evidence, shame on the perpetrators. And when traditional/natural stuff is used without evidence, shame on the perpetrators too!

    The difference is that the sociologically-defined grouping of 'complementary and alternative' medicine contains far more non-evidenced-based medicine than the sociologically-defined grouping of 'Western medicine'.

    To claim that the sociologically-defined group of Western medicines is a killer is ludicrous. It adheres to evidenced-based standards much better than the alties do. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than the alternative fruitcakes manage, since thanks to cold, hard, reductionist Western medical science, we've wiped out a couple of infectious diseases, dramatically improved the standard of living for patients, increased life expectancy hugely, reduced pain and suffering for those with illnesses, helped sort out even psychological diseases. It's not perfect, but any methodology which leads directly to the wiping-out of smallpox gets my vote.

    We should support evidenced-based medicine, and for all it's flaws, Western medicine is the best we've got on that front. Many of the CAM products and services admit that they are faith-based or rely on subjective experiences and effects. They openly refuse testing, in many instances. And they, for the most part, fail many of the tests that they do take part in.

    If we think something works, whatever it's source - whether it's discovered by biochemistry doctorates or by native tribal healers from Outer Bongo, we should see whether it works. Test it against non-treatment, against placebo and against existing methods. Find out how and why it supposedly works and conduct tests to see if there are any scientific explanations for the supposed effects.

    If these drugs and treatments - conventional or alternative - work, then it is our moral responsibility to test them - that way, we can reliably prescribe them to more and more people to solve diseases if, in fact, they are successful. And we cut back on waste, and stop insulting patients, with non-working medicine.

    But the reason why many of the 'alternative' medicines refuse testing is simple. They've got a racket going already. If tested, and shown to be wrong, then that business would vanish. Better keep quiet and keep the money coming in, than test the products, find out they don't work and go bust (and if you've been selling the product for long enough, in a dramatic way with all your patients suing you for some form of fraud).

    For this to happen, we need to cut through the crap about natural vs. artificial. Some natural products can cure people's problems. That is for sure. Some artificial products can cure people's problems too. Let's cut that distinction. They're just chemicals. Water is still water, whether you describe it as the beautiful, flowing natural Arctic currents or you say it's two hydrogen molecules and an oxygen molecule joined together. Similarly, whether it comes from some rare plant in the jungle, known only to some crazy witch doctor, or it comes from the laboratory of a drug company, it contains a chemical(s).

    One thing we do is to take that chemical from it's natural origin and synthesise it. This can reduce production costs (since we don't need to fly the stuff over from the forests of Outer Bongo, instead we can make it in a factory in Britain) and also have health benefits: the plant may have chemicals in that we don't want, or not have a suitable dosage - while a pill or injection will contain only the chemicals we want, rather than the stuff we don't, and we can be far more precise aout the dosage. We can also get it in to the body in a more-effective manner. In some instances, intravenal injection is a better way to get a chemical in your body than by putting it in a cup of tea or a packet of herbs. Scientific medicine can be aware of the choices regarding how medicine is used, and to design the medicine in such a way as to improve it's utility.

    Similarly, scientific medicine can produce things like vaccines to prevent disease from coming around. The advocates of CAM are frequently against vaccination, for irrational reasons ususally.

    I, and other responsible sceptics, don't dismiss claims because of their source. We get tired after having treatment after treatment shown to us, and having shown, time and time again, that they don't work. We're tired of the dishonesty and other assorted nonsense that the CAM people put out there - the crazy conspiracy theories about how drug companies are trying to take over the world, also the whole crossover between Marxist politics and doubts about Western medicine - because of all the Evil Capitalist Overlords who produce it, and all the BS and lies these people spread (I've seen numerous doctors who've had to go to court to defend themselves from the libellous nonsense put out by these quacks and phoneys, because these doctors had the balls to actually spread the scientific research on these people's methods) and so on.

    There can be a healthy dialogue between advocates of traditional/natural medicine and science - but these people who are involved with it are usually hucksters or they have true believer syndrome - they are unable to change their mind on matters of fact.

    If they can come up with a cure for something, good luck to them. But just because they speak softly and use words like 'holistic' and 'natural' doesn't mean we should cut them any slack when it comes to scientifically testing their ideas and products to see whether they work or not. Not to do so is an affront to the sufferers of diseases. Not to test them, or to continue to tolerate them after they have been shown not to work in testing, is to invite a plethora of Pied Piper characters in to hospital wards to lead the patients off down trips of ignorance and false hope.

    And, I have to make one thing clear: I have no financial interest in either side. I'm a philosophy student, not a company executive for Glaxo or Pfizer. I'm not a shareowner (though my bank could be on my behalf, I suppose), nor are any of my family employed or involved in the pharmaceutical business. I just care about real medicine. Because when I get cancer or a heart attack, I want the scientists treating me, not the witch doctors and homeopaths.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think both methods can work and they can also work together quite harmoniously. I believe in modern or converntional medicine, as it has developed methods of treating quite horrific diseases ie cancer. I also believe in natural medicines and I try and use them as often as I can for treating minor afflictions, I have tried accupuncture and I did find it relieved some pain I had at the time. I don't think natural medicines are as efficient when treating things like cancer, but it can be very useful. I say use both
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeana)
    I think both methods can work and they can also work together quite harmoniously. I believe in modern or converntional medicine, as it has developed methods of treating quite horrific diseases ie cancer. I also believe in natural medicines and I try and use them as often as I can for treating minor afflictions, I have tried accupuncture and I did find it relieved some pain I had at the time. I don't think natural medicines are as efficient when treating things like cancer, but it can be very useful. I say use both
    That approach doesn't work. Take St. John's Wort. It's a herbal medicine used to treat depression. It seems to work reasonably well, possibly not quite as well as the conventional medicine. But it's non-efficacious components have been known to interact in a very negative way with certain drugs given to patients with heart diseases. But since most people don't tell their doctors what 'alternatives' they are taking, because they treat it seperately, and, as a result, the side effects of drug interaction are unknown.

    If you're undergoing treatment for heart disease, it's essential that your doctor knows whether you're taking St. John's Wort or not. And it's the same with many of these alternative, complementary, natural medicines and treatments. Some of them will do no harm. But some of them can and will interact with the 'conventionals'. If the proponents of the medicine put them forward for scientific testing, we could find what they contain and how they work, synthesis more healthy equivalents (the conventional depression medicines don't have the same problem with heart drugs) and make sure that patients aren't taking incompatible drugs.

    Again, the pushers of alternative medicine won't do this, simply because your health isn't their concern. It's their financial gain which is their concern. (If you're an alternative medicine user, tell them that you're concerned and say that you might boycott their product unless they actually put their drugs forward for scientific and clinical testing.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by tommorris)
    That approach doesn't work. Take St. John's Wort. It's a herbal medicine used to treat depression. It seems to work reasonably well, possibly not quite as well as the conventional medicine. But it's non-efficacious components have been known to interact in a very negative way with certain drugs given to patients with heart diseases. But since most people don't tell their doctors what 'alternatives' they are taking, because they treat it seperately, and, as a result, the side effects of drug interaction are unknown.

    If you're undergoing treatment for heart disease, it's essential that your doctor knows whether you're taking St. John's Wort or not. And it's the same with many of these alternative, complementary, natural medicines and treatments. Some of them will do no harm. But some of them can and will interact with the 'conventionals'. If the proponents of the medicine put them forward for scientific testing, we could find what they contain and how they work, synthesis more healthy equivalents (the conventional depression medicines don't have the same problem with heart drugs) and make sure that patients aren't taking incompatible drugs.

    Again, the pushers of alternative medicine won't do this, simply because your health isn't their concern. It's their financial gain which is their concern. (If you're an alternative medicine user, tell them that you're concerned and say that you might boycott their product unless they actually put their drugs forward for scientific and clinical testing.
    it also reduces the efficacy of the contraceptive pill.

    just for the record though, chiropracty is such a well established 'alternative therapy' that is not really thought of being it anymore.
    its basically like physio for your spine.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jamie)
    just for the record though, chiropracty is such a well established 'alternative therapy' that is not really thought of being it anymore.
    its basically like physio for your spine.
    Debatable. It rests upon a flawed paradigm of subluxations, and many chiropractors con their customers in to believing that having their spine manipulated will cure all sorts of ailments totally unconnected to the spine or spinal injury.

    Chiropractic does work when it's certain spinal conditions which are the problem. But the subluxation part of the profession ruin it for the straight, scientific chiropractors who treat just those cases where chiropractic can actually help rather than babbling about subluxations and so on.

    Again, see Chirobase and the Skeptic's Dictionary.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by tommorris)
    Debatable. It rests upon a flawed paradigm of subluxations, and many chiropractors con their customers in to believing that having their spine manipulated will cure all sorts of ailments totally unconnected to the spine or spinal injury.

    Chiropractic does work when it's certain spinal conditions which are the problem. But the subluxation part of the profession ruin it for the straight, scientific chiropractors who treat just those cases where chiropractic can actually help rather than babbling about subluxations and so on.

    Again, see Chirobase and the Skeptic's Dictionary.
    do you have any idea how much conventional medicine is based entirely along traditional practice rather than evidence based medicine... :confused:

    some of the stuff given/done to people has utterly no value but is still done anyway just so as to provide the appearance of doing something.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I can't believe there are no testimonials. I went to some of the best doctors in the USA and none of them could figure out how to put my crohn's disease in remission. For those of you that don't know about crohn's disease, you can read about it here: http://www.angelfire.com/ga/crohns/faq.html )

    I tried conventional medicine for many years and at one point they had me taking more than 20 pills a day, all of which were ineffective. Friends of mine kept suggesting that I seek other alternatives, but, like many people on this forum, I was skeptical. When it got so out of control I couldn't even leave the house without having an accident, I was ready to try natural medicine. I went to see someone that was only one the few real MDs that practices alternative medicine.

    When I went to my first appointment, the stuff the doctor was telling me to do sounded so absurd, I almost walked out. She was telling me to swallow capsules that were filled with cayenne pepper. My other doctors always told me to stay away from spicy food, and I had someone telling me that I should swallow cayenne pepper! She also handed me a bag of powder made from ground up tree bark. The tree was a slippery elm tree and its ground up bark was used by Native Americans to treat a variety of different ailments. She told me to mix a tablespoon with my favorite drink three times a day. She also gave me some teas to drink every day.

    I started following her instructions and after a few months, all my symptoms disappeared. I wasn't quite convinced that such a debilitating disease could be put in remission by what a lot of people insist is quackery. How would I really know if it would have gone away on its own? I decided to stop taking the herbs and immediately, I started suffering from profuse intestinal bleeding. I started taking the herbs again and the bleeding stopped and I got my life back.

    I have also sent other people with chronic illness to this doctor they have all been cured. I'm not suggesting that everyone with chronic illness be as fortunate as I was, but after exhausting all other options, it worked for me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather trust proper scientific testing than testomonials from people that may be biased or simply untrue with no scientific knowledge. Afterall, this disease may have just gone away anyway, or perhaps there is a placebo effect involved. Fact of the matter is there is no way of knowing for sure until this kind of treatment is properly tested, and I bet if there was the slightest chance of it being economically viable pharma companies would have poured a lot of research into it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I can't believe there are no testimonials. I went to some of the best doctors in the USA and none of them could figure out how to put my crohn's disease in remission. For those of you that don't know about crohn's disease, you can read about it here: http://www.angelfire.com/ga/crohns/faq.html )

    I tried conventional medicine for many years and at one point they had me taking more than 20 pills a day, all of which were ineffective. Friends of mine kept suggesting that I seek other alternatives, but, like many people on this forum, I was skeptical. When it got so out of control I couldn't even leave the house without having an accident, I was ready to try natural medicine. I went to see someone that was only one the few real MDs that practices alternative medicine.

    When I went to my first appointment, the stuff the doctor was telling me to do sounded so absurd, I almost walked out. She was telling me to swallow capsules that were filled with cayenne pepper. My other doctors always told me to stay away from spicy food, and I had someone telling me that I should swallow cayenne pepper! She also handed me a bag of powder made from ground up tree bark. The tree was a slippery elm tree and its ground up bark was used by Native Americans to treat a variety of different ailments. She told me to mix a tablespoon with my favorite drink three times a day. She also gave me some teas to drink every day.

    I started following her instructions and after a few months, all my symptoms disappeared. I wasn't quite convinced that such a debilitating disease could be put in remission by what a lot of people insist is quackery. How would I really know if it would have gone away on its own? I decided to stop taking the herbs and immediately, I started suffering from profuse intestinal bleeding. I started taking the herbs again and the bleeding stopped and I got my life back.

    I have also sent other people with chronic illness to this doctor they have all been cured. I'm not suggesting that everyone with chronic illness be as fortunate as I was, but after exhausting all other options, it worked for me.
    Please, this is rubbish!

    People have claimed they have be cured by jesus, cured by witch doctors, cured by the sky being blue, cured by any rubbish... it doesnt mean any of it is true. It, at best, is just the placebo effect where people feel better by taking something.

    People just manipulate vunerable people and exploit people when they are chronically ill saying they have a cure that you can have for only 3 million dollars! It's horrific and never works!

    If chronic diseases could be treated by tree bark and other rubbish it would have been part of conventional evidence based medicines a long time ago. Alas it hasn't and AIDS, cystic fibrosis and countless other chronic diseases are still here despite claimed cures! There are NO cures now!
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by Made in the USA)
    I can't believe there are no testimonials. I went to some of the best doctors in the USA and none of them could figure out how to put my crohn's disease in remission. For those of you that don't know about crohn's disease, you can read about it here: http://www.angelfire.com/ga/crohns/faq.html )

    I tried conventional medicine for many years and at one point they had me taking more than 20 pills a day, all of which were ineffective. Friends of mine kept suggesting that I seek other alternatives, but, like many people on this forum, I was skeptical. When it got so out of control I couldn't even leave the house without having an accident, I was ready to try natural medicine. I went to see someone that was only one the few real MDs that practices alternative medicine.

    When I went to my first appointment, the stuff the doctor was telling me to do sounded so absurd, I almost walked out. She was telling me to swallow capsules that were filled with cayenne pepper. My other doctors always told me to stay away from spicy food, and I had someone telling me that I should swallow cayenne pepper! She also handed me a bag of powder made from ground up tree bark. The tree was a slippery elm tree and its ground up bark was used by Native Americans to treat a variety of different ailments. She told me to mix a tablespoon with my favorite drink three times a day. She also gave me some teas to drink every day.

    I started following her instructions and after a few months, all my symptoms disappeared. I wasn't quite convinced that such a debilitating disease could be put in remission by what a lot of people insist is quackery. How would I really know if it would have gone away on its own? I decided to stop taking the herbs and immediately, I started suffering from profuse intestinal bleeding. I started taking the herbs again and the bleeding stopped and I got my life back.

    I have also sent other people with chronic illness to this doctor they have all been cured. I'm not suggesting that everyone with chronic illness be as fortunate as I was, but after exhausting all other options, it worked for me.
    Dude you are aware that the very essence of Crohns IS that it is a remitting disease. IT comes and goes - THATS WHAT IT DOES.

    now it may be that cayenne pepper is good at putting it into remission, or it may not be. but i assure you, it will be back.
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.