This is one of the few things that kind of upsets and bothers me so much in the nursing world (well healthcare in general, but since im in nursing it bothers me when i see it with nurses more)
But so frequently there are so many people who recommend this alternative nonense, to seeking real medical attention, and it really just worries me.
Theres the obvious danger of interactions with real medication, but then it also promotes people to either avoid actually treating their problem. Or it takes money away from going to real healthcare, and instead ends up in the pockets of these charlatans.
In nursing school I saw it so incredibly frequently, and even in the hospital I see it somewhat often. Nurses who tell patients that eating grains causes their diabetes, or ranting about GMOs and this crap. Other nurses who are stubborn/ignorant enough to avoid getting vaccinated (flu shots!) for reasons other than legitimate medical reasons (id never expect someone with a history or guillain barre or allergies to force a shot on themselves)
If medical professionals want to do all this nonsense in their personal lives, thats their right. Its just when they bring it into the workplace and involve patients in it that it really worries me.
When its relatively harmless it doesn't bother me (ie some of the out there ideas that people may have for patients to improve their pain without drugs) fine. But when it just spreads ignorance and confuses the patient, its terrible.
And again, I posted quite a few studies. One of which has a sample size of over 2000. No, it is not the most highly studied form of alternative medicine, but there are multiple studies that suggest that it does have some effect.
you are twisting the meaning of the post you quoted, and some meds ARE/have been found later to be more dangerous than utile. One most do ones due diligence in finding practitioners to work with, that includes MDs. Western medicines forte is acute treatment, not so good at chronic care, share the arena. One problem with "purifying", herbals/vitamins for testing is that the effect is/may not be, the result of any one isolated aspect of said herbal/vitamin/food stuff.
It seems you have deep seated control issues, this isn't going to work for you in nursing. The patient is the one in control of their treatment, in the end.
Im amazed at how many nurses think medicine is bad.
Yes medicine can have adverse effects, but the entire point is that the good they do outweighs the bad. Otherwise there would be no point for people to ever take them.
Even natural herbal supplements have side effects which can be JUST as dangerous as real medicine. Except since theyre not controlled/regulated and not researched as well they are far less predictable and can be more difficult to avoid (assuming the herbal actually does something and isnt just gelatin in which case it will do nothing.)
understand and applaud your observation. Herbals have thousands of years of history behind them. I am more into nutrition, but am willing to share the arena with all comers.
Agree with this.
Again, not all supplements are "herbal remedies" - this thread alone indicates that most people really don't know much about herbal therapies.
Reiki and Therapeutic Touch claim their mechanism of action is that "energy" is moved around by waving hands over a patient. That is simply not plausible.
Read how a 9 year old girl de-bunked such nonsense in her 4th grade science fair project:
[h=2]Therapeutic Touch study[edit][/h]In 1996, Rosa saw a video of Therapeutic Touch (TT) practitioners claiming they could feel a "Human Energy Field" (HEF) emanating from a human body and could use their hands to manipulate the HEF in order to diagnose and treat disease. She heard Dolores Krieger, the co-inventor of Therapeutic Touch, claim that everyone had the ability to feel the HEF, and Rosa heard other nurses say the HEF felt to them "warm as Jell-O" and "tactile as taffy." Rosa was impressed by how certain these nurses were about their abilities. She said, "I wanted to see if they really could feel something."[1]
Using a standard science fair display board, Rosa devised a single-blind protocol, later described by other scientists as "simple and elegant," for a study she conducted at age nine for her 4th grade science fair. There were two series of tests. In 1996, 15 practitioners were tested at their home or office on different days over a period of several months. In 1997, 13 practitioners, including 7 from the first series, were tested on a single day. The second series was observed and videotaped by the producers of Scientific American Frontiers. Stephen Barrett, MD, of Quackwatch was senior author, Emily's mother (Linda Rosa, RN) was lead author, and her stepfather (Larry Sarner) served as statistician when the experiment was written up for Journal of the American Medical Association. The study, which included an extensive literature search, was published April 1, 1998. George Lundberg, editor of JAMA, aware of the uniqueness of the situation, said: "Age doesn't matter. It's good science that matters, and this is good science".[2]
The study tested the ability of 21 TT practitioners to detect the HEF when they were not looking. Rosa asked each of the practitioners to sit at a table and extend their hands through a screen. On the other side of the screen, Rosa randomly selected which of the TT practitioner's hands she would hold her hand over. The TT practitioners were then asked which of their hands detected Rosa's HEF. Subjects were each given ten tries, but they correctly located Rosa's hand an average of only 4.4 times. Some subjects were asked before testing to examine Rosa's hands and select which of her hands they thought produced the strongest HEF. Rosa then used that hand during the experiment, but those subjects performed no better. The results showed that TT practitioners could not detect the hand more often than chance, and Rosa et al. therefore concluded that there was no empirical basis to the HEF and by extension therapeutic touch:
To our knowledge, no other objective, quantitative study involving more than a few TT practitioners has been published, and no well-designed study demonstrates any health benefit from TT. These facts, together with our experimental findings, suggest that TT claims are groundless and that further use of TT by health professionals is unjustified.
Specializes in Oncology; medical specialty website.
Im amazed at how many nurses think medicine is bad.
Yes medicine can have adverse effects, but the entire point is that the good they do outweighs the bad. Otherwise there would be no point for people to ever take them.
Even natural herbal supplements have side effects which can be JUST as dangerous as real medicine. Except since theyre not controlled/regulated and not researched as well they are far less predictable and can be more difficult to avoid (assuming the herbal actually does something and isnt just gelatin in which case it will do nothing.)
I didn't say all medicine is bad. But if someone can get relief with something that has fewer side effects v a drug that makes them ill, I'm all for it. I know "natural" doesn't mean "risk free."
Since you seem to be entrenched in the idea that complementary medicine is "bunk," I really don't have anything more to say to you.
I didn't say all medicine is bad. But if someone can get relief with something that has fewer side effects v a drug that makes them ill, I'm all for it. I know "natural" doesn't mean "risk free."
Since you seem to be entrenched in the idea that complementary medicine is "bunk," I really don't have anything more to say to you.
I don't want to turn this into a religious debate but I personally include "prayer" into this ineffective "alternative" treatments that do nothing except provide false hope and in many cases harm patients who are gullible and choose this nonsense over science based medicine.
So it's better they should take drugs that can cause renal failure or liver damage.
Renal failure and liver damage can be prevented, monitored, and fixed. "Natural" does not mean "safe" or "no side effects." One of my home health clients ended up with liver damage from an herbal supplement.
Herbals have thousands of years of history behind them. I.
You know when you read about the history of medical science, you find that a lot of "old" ideas are bunk. But it was the best knowledge that folks had at that time, back when age 50 was a long long life. Saying something works simply because people have been doing it that way for a thousand years is called"the appeal to antiquity" which assumes that if something has been around it is thus better or true. Medical science says old ideas are neutral neither bad nor good until the idea has been empirically tested. Um.. you know …"the scientific method".
Now a few TESTED pharmaceuticals have their roots in ancient herbal use; for example, I had vinblastine chemotherapy which comes from the vinca plant. But it was empirically tested in clinical trials and administered to me by licensed professionals.
What do you call "alternative" medicine that has been empirically tested to show that it works ?? Medicine. But until they are tested herbs are just garnishes or lovely plants.
I didn't say all medicine is bad. But if someone can get relief with something that has fewer side effects v a drug that makes them ill, I'm all for it. I know "natural" doesn't mean "risk free."
Since you seem to be entrenched in the idea that complementary medicine is "bunk," I really don't have anything more to say to you.
But im not entrenched in the idea that all complementary medicine is bunk.
First I acknowledge the placebo or psychological effect. Especially when it comes to pain management. Stuff like Reiki 1000000% is bunk because theres no such thing as magical powers. If it makes a patient feel better great. But I dont feel that a MD making well over 100$ an hour or a nurse making whatever, should be wasting his/her time and the hospitals money performing something that is make believe.
Especially when there are patients who legitimately need real treatments/assessments. And hospitals/healthcare professionals are supposed to follow evidence based practice models. Reiki and scifi doesnt fall into that category. If someone wants to pursuit these "unofficial" alternatives by all means do so, but it should be on their own dime/time and not the hospitals, Hospitals are severely struggling right now, so wasting precious resources on crap hurts people that really need care.
Secondly I wholeheartedly believe in and acknowledge the POTENTIAL of herbal remedies/alternative supplements. Now as is I think the overwhelming majority of herbal supplements are crap as is, but thats due to a lack of regulation and research. A herbal product doesnt even need to have the products listed on its label (ie there can be nothing in your pill) which I think most people SHOULD agree is absurd. Some argue "blah blah blah just go to a reputable herbalist" but herbalists have no stand training/education either so its useless. Herbals should be held to the same standards as real medications,and then from there sufficiently studied and researched just like drugs.
For instance Glucosamine and Chondrotin (while technically not a herb I believe) has been somewhat researched as a supplement to help joint pain and arthritis.
So im not certainly not ignorant to the potential of alternative medicine. But if the stuff isnt treated in a serious controlled manner then theres no reason to take it seriously as a viable alternative to western medicine.
Or put differently. How many of the herbal flower power people would throw a **** fit if western medicine wasnt regulated ? What if "big pharma" could just put whatever the hell they wanted in a capsule, and it didnt even need to contain the prescribed medicine ?
Id imagine it would be pretty bad and people wouldnt be happy about it. Well thats exactly what alternative medicine is. All promise, and zero responsibility and accountability.
mhy12784
565 Posts
Whats its proposed mechanism of action?