Hidden Health Science

Posts Tagged ‘Medicine’

by Aaron Turpen, Health Freedom Network Newsletter Editor (via Truth2America)

Several states, including Nevada and North Carolina, have introduced legislation that would license and control (and ultimately outlaw) non-mainstream health practices. These include alternative medical treatments such as acupuncture, Ayurveda, holistic medicine, homeopathy, etc.

There are several reasons for this push, not the least of which is pressure from mainstream medicine as it sees more and more people going to alternatives they like to call “complementary and alternative medicine” or CAM. Doctors use this term in a semi-derisive manner to refer to things like acupuncture and the like. They prefer CAM because it implies that these are add-on medical treatments rather than replacements for western (supposedly) science-based medical practice.

The bills function by creating licensing boards that get to decide who can and can’t practice any form of regulated health care in the state. Like doctors, nurses, and even morticians, this would put alternative health practitioners at the mercy of overseers who may or may not be sympathetic to the type of practice the practitioners use.

This is the first step towards regulating what those health and wellness professionals can and can’t say, prescribe, or use for treatment.

The bills, of course, are being touted as a way to “bring disparate medical practices together” and “regulate alternative practitioners for public safety.” They’ll do neither.

The mainstream medical press has been rife lately with reports of what they consider to be malpractice and false claims by alternative medical supporters. The news loves to show the mother whose child dies because she refused cancer treatments that, incidentally, would not have saved the child either – only prolonged the suffering. But the news does not show people like the woman featured in Issue #375 of theHealth Freedom Network Newsletter, Jessica Ainscough, who is using an alternative called the Gerson Therapy to combat her cancer (she’s winning).

The fight over who gets to decide what type of medical treatment and wellness options you have is continual. The control freaks who make up our government are intent on regulating every aspect of our lives, including (and especially) health options.

It’s time for the American people to stand up, refuse, and resist these attempts to nanny our lives. It’s time for us to take back our freedom to choose for ourselves!

My two-part series on Evidence-Based Medicine, titled “Evidence-Based Medicine is Not Exclusive of Alternative Medicine” (Part 1 here, Part 2 here), has published and generated a lot of feedback.  Mostly negative.

Not surprising, as I expected it to be controversial amongst the audience there.

My premise was, basically, that evidence-based research should be done on natural remedies and cures the same way it is done with mainstream medicine.  The gist of the idea being that if natural remedies and cures actually work, they should be able to withstand scientific inquiry and those that are merely wives’ tales can be eliminated from our repertoire.

This has met with a lot of resistance, of course, by those who are big fans of alternative medicine.  Understandably, I think, these people are very critical of anything “mainstream” in medicine.  Including the scientific practices that are used to find those therapies that work and dismiss those that don’t.  Given the way alternatives have been treated by the mainstream, it’s not surprising that a huge amount of resentment exists.

Of course, no one is bothering to respond to my call for a person or group of people to come together and form a well-funded non-profit to do scientific experiments to test the validity of alternative medical treatments.  Instead, they’re hitting me with statements like the following:

“I am not at all happy with this article! Scientific evidence is one thing. An assumption that is made throughout both part 1 and part 2 of this article is that the ONLY way science is truthful or can prove a scientific outcome is through the almighty “double blind” study. I had a fabulous holistic physician tell me that he was sick and tired of the medical community worshiping at the alter of the double blind study! I agree. First of all, lets take statins for example. Double blind studies PROVE that they lower cholesterol numbers.”

This person then went on to attempt an explanation of basic human biochemistry to me, ending with the statement: “My suggestion to you, Aaron Turpen, is to take a course in biochemistry and do your homework before writing another article as bad as this one.”

Of course, anyone who accepted the statins studies mentioned would realize that they are flawed studies because they included neither empirical evidence nor were the studies conclusive, since they assumed that a certain type of cholesterol is “bad” – an assumption that is now under question.

Another reader, this one via email, said:

“This article was pure bull@#$t!  Science has destroyed medicine sir and is ruining everything and only works for big pharma.  You are an idiot.”

Wow, pretty thoughtful there.  I didn’t bother responding.  No reason to give that genius my real email address.

Another said:

“How could you write something so full of garbage? Medicine is an art and not a science based on statistics and ‘this cures that’talk. A homeopath must weigh what his patient needs with what might work in the case at hand. This is how medicine really should work, with the patient and doctor working together to find the right option for the person’s needs.”

I received several like that.  What they fail to realize is… where is the starting point?  Does the doctor just blindly prescribe various things until something finally works?  Sort of a hit-and-miss and hope-for-the-best dart throwing expedition?

I don’t think so.  They start with something that’s known to work with specific symptoms or illnesses.  A treatment will be initially prescribed based on the illness at hand and then adjusted to fit the patient; first via standardized dosages based on the patient’s physiology and then adjusted as needed until it’s right.  If the initial treatment doesn’t work, there’s likely another that’s been found to have worked and the process begins anew.

That is science. The science built the foundation and after that, the art of medicine takes control to adjust for the patient’s specific needs based on what the doctor is observing and the feedback gained from the patient.

I got a lot of other feedback, pretty much all negative, all mostly along the lines above.  Many were just “you suck” types of emails.  I’m used to that.  I’m attempting to promote a science-based approach to a community made up mainly of science-hating people.  Again, I feel they have good reason to be leery of mainstream medical science, but the scientific method itself is sound.

As I stated in the articles, science is not bad.  Only the people who misuse it (i.e. Big Pharma and the FDA) are bad.

Across the United States, debates about medical marijuana fester in many communities and states. Currently, fourteen states of the fifty in the Union plus Washington, D.C. have legalized marijuana for medical use. Yet in those states, and many others who are considering similar measures, the argument rages on.

What is most often ignored in these discussions is the science behind the use of cannabis as a medicine. Yet there is ample scientific evidence proving the efficacy of this natural herb in treating some medical conditions. Just as there is evidence of side effects.

First, the Science

The University of California Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research has done several studies into the efficacy of marijuana for neuropathic use – especially in pain reduction. They have been done using FDA standardized clinical trials with randomized, placebo-controlled procedures. These studies have clearly shown the positive effects of using marijuana as a pain reliever and medicine for patients with such chronic conditions as HIV, multiple sclerosis, diabetes, spinal cord injury, and sleep disorders.¹

A recent review in Germany showed that since 2005, there have been 37 controlled studies assessing the safety and efficacy of marijuana (and its compounds). These involved far more subjects than the average study seeking FDA approval for a prescription drug.²

These are just a few, as over 2,500 papers were published on the subject of cannabis in 2009 alone.

Next, the Baseless Debates

Many opponents of medical marijuana claim that there is “little evidence” and call for “more research, more science.” These are the more reasonable of the detractors for the medicinal use of marijuana, of course. Yet these reasonable arguments against marijuana as a medicine are pretty hollow given the vast amount of research that’s already been done with much more on the way.

Proponents of medical marijuana often ignore the research as well. Despite the common claims to the contrary, there is evidence that marijuana also has negative side effects. Most of these center on the physical effects of smoking it as well as proven cognitive negatives. Admittedly, the effects are no worse (and generally better) than the side effects associated with many prescription drugs and accepted non-prescription drugs such as alcohol or tobacco.³

Most of the arguments for or against the use of medical marijuana seem to center on social rather than science-based concerns. Rightly so, in some cases, as there are deep social issues involved with marijuana’s use (or prohibition). Many communities have benefited from the introduction of medical marijuana, however.⁴ The negative impacts of marijuana, socially, are nearly always associated with its prohibition rather than its allowance.

When All Is Said and Done

Marijuana is continually being proven to have medical uses. It’s prohibition is becoming less and less tenable as negative societal impacts are proving to be more psychologically-based than they are scientific. With 14 of 50 states in the U.S. having medical marijuana laws and with several considering full legalization of it (as is Mexico and as have some European countries), the real motivations behind those who condemn marijuana as a “hard drug” akin to synthetic street drugs such as cocaine are hard to understand.

The truth is, however, until Americans are willing to be completely honest about the issues surrounding marijuana and its use as a medicine, these senseless arguments are likely to continue indefinitely. Both sides of the argument need to concede that the other may have some points. All involved must realize that medical marijuana has enough science-based proof behind it to be considered legitimate and at the same time acknowledge that there are negatives to the use of marijuana as well.

Resources:
1 – Center for Medicinal Cannabis Research studies list

2 – Review on clinical studies with cannabis and cannabinoids 2005-2009 by Arno Hzekamp, Franjo Grotenhermen, Institute Biology Leiden, Leiden University, The Netherlands

3 – Special Marijuana Issue New Scientist Magazine, 21 February 1998

4 – Medical Marijuana Has Lawmakers Seeing Green by Aaron Turpen, CannaCentral.com

Editor’s Note: I don’t normally publish reprints from other sites, but this is an important one and worth reading.  It outlines the trouble with finding provable alternative medical science and other scientifically-proven medical alternatives.  Besides the obvious fact that most research is funded by drug companies and medical technology groups, which precludes most alternatives, you also have the straw man arguments used to “disprove” medical alternatives.  This article is worth reading, the following is an excerpt to get you started.  A link to the full version is included and definitely worth the click.

by Anthony Rosner, PhD, LLD, LLC, Dynamic Chiropractic

The simplest way to explain a straw man argument is that it is a fallacy based upon the misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.¹ Like a monster drawn from Greek mythology, it can assume many forms.

It may oversimplify the opponent’s position or quote it out of context, stacking the deck so one’s argument may run over the opponent with the crushing totality of a Panzer tank division. In its worst incarnation, the straw man misrepresentation is deliberate and only the weakest target is chosen- that target is then held to represent the totality of the opponent’s being.²

Historically, the term seems to have been taken from using human practice dummies made of straw, such as used in military training and thus a cinch to knock over. It has also been referred to as a traditional fairground game in the U.K., calling it an Aunt Sally. An even more unusual origin suggests it was used to designate men who stood outside the courthouse with straw in their shoes indicating their willingness to be false witnesses; but that notion itself seems to be an urban legend, if not a straw man itself.^3-4

What is obvious and disturbing is that straw men are not just marketing ploys that we’ve become jaded to seeing in television commercials; they are found even in the highest echelons of peer-reviewed journals in medical literature. Straw men seem to have been particularly dominant in publications critical of alternative medical approaches, even appearing in at least one instance in a pharmaceutical company’s attempt to denigrate another company.

Read the rest at this link.