How do you find a MD that's open to complementary and alternative medicine?

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Snatchface

Originally posted by: apoppin
Prevention,com

Make sure to check out their links and health resources.


I have much more information on alternative practicioners. Unfortunately they are in my "archives" on CD. If you are interested, Riprorin , PM me and I'll try to find them for you.

Bsically, I have an MD as my primary DIAGNOSTICIAN - after I find out "what's wrong" - I then visit my Acupuncturist/TCM practicioner or Chiropractor (I find them much LESS useful since I discovered acupuncture) or Homeopathic physician.

A LAST RESORT for me is the MD's treatment.

I really don't care if any of you prefer Western medicine. My method is perfect for me.

It is pure irony and/or hipocracy that you guys accuse MD's of being in the pockets of drug companies, and yet get all of your information from web sites that are peddling their own products at exorbitant prices. This was just priceless - "Look for the big red "A" - that means it's Atkins certified." Yup, no alterior motive there.

You can definitely trust those guys to look after your best health. Thank god they sell that stuff! Where else could I pay hundreds of dollars on unproven therapies that the medical community is ignoring?!?! DAMN THEM THOSE DOCTORS!!!

Then worship at the altar of "Modern" Western medicine.

I give my money to whomever I wish. If I find alternative therapy more effective for my family, it is a personal choice and your ignorant criticism has no effect on me.

I gave Prevention magazine as a place to Start looking.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Snatchface

Originally posted by: apoppin
Prevention,com

Make sure to check out their links and health resources.


I have much more information on alternative practicioners. Unfortunately they are in my "archives" on CD. If you are interested, Riprorin , PM me and I'll try to find them for you.

Bsically, I have an MD as my primary DIAGNOSTICIAN - after I find out "what's wrong" - I then visit my Acupuncturist/TCM practicioner or Chiropractor (I find them much LESS useful since I discovered acupuncture) or Homeopathic physician.

A LAST RESORT for me is the MD's treatment.

I really don't care if any of you prefer Western medicine. My method is perfect for me.

It is pure irony and/or hipocracy that you guys accuse MD's of being in the pockets of drug companies, and yet get all of your information from web sites that are peddling their own products at exorbitant prices. This was just priceless - "Look for the big red "A" - that means it's Atkins certified." Yup, no alterior motive there.

You can definitely trust those guys to look after your best health. Thank god they sell that stuff! Where else could I pay hundreds of dollars on unproven therapies that the medical community is ignoring?!?! DAMN THEM THOSE DOCTORS!!!

I was being provocative. I don't believe that all doctors have sold out to the drug companies (although some probably have). I get the impression that American medical training is limited when it comes to alternative therapies. AsI pointed out, French MDs routinely prescribe homeopathic medicines.

I have never purchased an Atkins product although I do follow his dietary advice.

The result: I lost 20 lbs (23% body fat to 13% body fat) and improved my blood chemstry improved considerably in a very short period of time (about 7 weeks). I showed my MD my diet and he has absolutely no problems with it.

 

[The Sauce]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why do you get the idea that I minimize medical resarch?

The article I gave you on IHN had 40 journal references. Many of the references appeared to be from reputable medical journals.

Yet, you know nothing about IHN becuase the research finding haven't hit the mainstream medical press.

Maybe your reading is just too limited and/or you are biased by your medical training which largely ignores value nutrients and emphasizes pharmaceuticals.

Oh gee, I don't know...where evere did I get that idea...maybe when you said "what's the point of reviewing literature because it only changes anyway." And BTW, virtually all of the references in the INH article were background/historical relating to Nicain therapy in dyslipidemia. Now Niacin has been proven to be somewhat effective in reducing cholesterol. Oh wait I forgot, I'm an MD, that means I can't support a VITAMIN like Niacin which has good data proving efficacy because I'm bigoted against all vitamins and "natural" therapies and I'll lose my drug company stipend if I prescribe it. Better take all of my patients off of it.

Maybe the reason it has not hit the mainstream medical literature is because while Niacin is so/so at reducing cholesterol, it does not come close to statins and is MUCH more poorly tolerated and has terrible side effects - most people discontinue therapy due to itching and flushing with Niacin. Hence there is little interest in a slightly modified Niacin type drug understandibly. That's like someone publishing research on a new version of the steam engine. Would you see that in Popular Mechanics?

 

[apoppin]

Originally posted by: Snatchface

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Why do you get the idea that I minimize medical resarch?

The article I gave you on IHN had 40 journal references. Many of the references appeared to be from reputable medical journals.

Yet, you know nothing about IHN becuase the research finding haven't hit the mainstream medical press.

Maybe your reading is just too limited and/or you are biased by your medical training which largely ignores value nutrients and emphasizes pharmaceuticals.

Oh gee, I don't know...where evere did I get that idea...maybe when you said "what's the point of reviewing literature because it only changes anyway." And BTW, virtually all of the references in the INH article were background/historical relating to Nicain therapy in dyslipidemia. Now Niacin has been proven to be somewhat effective in reducing cholesterol. Oh wait I forgot, I'm an MD, that means I can't support a VITAMIN like Niacin which has good data proving efficacy because I'm bigoted against all vitamins and "natural" therapies and I'll lose my drug company stipend if I prescribe it. Better take all of my patients off of it.

Maybe the reason it has not hit the mainstream medical literature is because while Niacin is so/so at reducing cholesterol, it does not come close to statins and is MUCH more poorly tolerated and has terrible side effects - most people discontinue therapy due to itching and flushing= with Niacin. Hence there is little interest in a slightly modified Niacin type drug understandibly. That's like someone publishing research on a new version of the steam engine. Would you see that in Popular Mechanics?

terrible side effects - itching and flushing

Your "alt med" ignorance is overwhelming. Terrible side-effects are found mostly with modern medicines, not nutrients. Have you ever heard of niacinamide? No "terrible" flushing as with niacin.

And I am outta here.

 

[PhilsPhan]

Funny how some docs only pull out information that supports their views and not even the most recent.

Engler MM, Engler MB, Malloy MJ, Chiu EY, Schloetter MC, Paul SM, Stuehlinger M, Lin KY, Cooke JP, Morrow JD, Ridker PM, Rifai N, Miller E, Witztum JL, Mietus-Snyder M. Related Articles, Links
Antioxidant Vitamins C and E Improve Endothelial Function in Children With Hyperlipidemia. Endothelial Assessment of Risk from Lipids in Youth (EARLY) Trial.
Circulation. 2003 Aug 11 [Epub ahead of print]


Ziccarelli VE, Basu TK. Related Articles, Links
An in vivo study of the antioxidant potentials of a plant food concentrate.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2003 Aug;22(4):277-82.



Leborgne L, Fournadjiev J, Pakala R, Dilcher C, Cheneau E, Wolfram R, Hellinga D, Seaborn R, O'Tio F, Waksman R. Related Articles, Links
Antioxidants attenuate atherosclerotic plaque development in a balloon-denuded and -radiated hypercholesterolemic rabbit.
Cardiovasc Radiat Med. 2003 Jan-Mar;4(1):25-8.


Saygili EI, Konukoglu D, Papila C, Akcay T. Related Articles, Links
Levels of Plasma Vitamin E, Vitamin C, TBARS, and Cholesterol in Male Patients with Colorectal Tumors.
Biochemistry (Mosc). 2003 Mar;68(3):325-8

 

[Riprorin]

I think there's some studies done at Harvard regarding the cardiac benefits of vitamin E that the medical community tends to ignore too.

 

[The Sauce]

Originally posted by: PhilsPhan
Funny how some docs only pull out information that supports their views and not even the most recent.

Engler MM, Engler MB, Malloy MJ, Chiu EY, Schloetter MC, Paul SM, Stuehlinger M, Lin KY, Cooke JP, Morrow JD, Ridker PM, Rifai N, Miller E, Witztum JL, Mietus-Snyder M. Related Articles, Links
Antioxidant Vitamins C and E Improve Endothelial Function in Children With Hyperlipidemia. Endothelial Assessment of Risk from Lipids in Youth (EARLY) Trial.
Circulation. 2003 Aug 11 [Epub ahead of print]


Ziccarelli VE, Basu TK. Related Articles, Links
An in vivo study of the antioxidant potentials of a plant food concentrate.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2003 Aug;22(4):277-82.



Leborgne L, Fournadjiev J, Pakala R, Dilcher C, Cheneau E, Wolfram R, Hellinga D, Seaborn R, O'Tio F, Waksman R. Related Articles, Links
Antioxidants attenuate atherosclerotic plaque development in a balloon-denuded and -radiated hypercholesterolemic rabbit.
Cardiovasc Radiat Med. 2003 Jan-Mar;4(1):25-8.


Saygili EI, Konukoglu D, Papila C, Akcay T. Related Articles, Links
Levels of Plasma Vitamin E, Vitamin C, TBARS, and Cholesterol in Male Patients with Colorectal Tumors.
Biochemistry (Mosc). 2003 Mar;68(3):325-8

Ok, but seriously here. I give you adult, human studies with over 30,000 participants and you responded with one study about radiated rabbits?? And another just about plant-food concentrates being antioxidant? What were we talking about here anyway? I forgot now after reviewing those studies.

Circulation is an excellent journal, and if antioxidants can improve endothelial dysfunction then they should have a benefit. I say should because they still have not been proven to, and none of those studies you cited show any benefit - particularly in cardiac disease.

I agree that the science behind antioxidant effects is convincing - starting with Linus Pauling's work with vitamin C. I will not dispute the fact that their ability to scavenge free radicals should translate into a health advantage - it just makes sense. However, for some reason, it doesn't. That's why we study these things. When I was in medical school (early 90's) everyone was stoked about antioxidants. We all thought they were going to prevent cancer, cure heart disease, prevent strokes, etc... Then they got studied like mad and it just didn't pan out. Then the "alternativists" latched on to them, made up some big conspiracy theory about traditional medicine, slapped their names on the bottles and started charging a fortune for them to those not saavy with the medical literature. And here they are today, still going - perpetuated by a self-serving industry that makes a fortune off of them, despite the absence of any convincing, reliable proof that they actually do anything (except make supplement manufacturers rich).

 

[The Sauce]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
I think there's some studies done at Harvard regarding the cardiac benefits of vitamin E that the medical community tends to ignore too.

Well apparently if you only "think" that they exist and can not find them then I guess you are ignoring them as well. Easy to ignore something that you can't find.

 

[Ameesh]

look for the hippie in a van down by the river

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Snatchface

Originally posted by: PhilsPhan
Funny how some docs only pull out information that supports their views and not even the most recent.

Engler MM, Engler MB, Malloy MJ, Chiu EY, Schloetter MC, Paul SM, Stuehlinger M, Lin KY, Cooke JP, Morrow JD, Ridker PM, Rifai N, Miller E, Witztum JL, Mietus-Snyder M. Related Articles, Links
Antioxidant Vitamins C and E Improve Endothelial Function in Children With Hyperlipidemia. Endothelial Assessment of Risk from Lipids in Youth (EARLY) Trial.
Circulation. 2003 Aug 11 [Epub ahead of print]


Ziccarelli VE, Basu TK. Related Articles, Links
An in vivo study of the antioxidant potentials of a plant food concentrate.
J Am Coll Nutr. 2003 Aug;22(4):277-82.



Leborgne L, Fournadjiev J, Pakala R, Dilcher C, Cheneau E, Wolfram R, Hellinga D, Seaborn R, O'Tio F, Waksman R. Related Articles, Links
Antioxidants attenuate atherosclerotic plaque development in a balloon-denuded and -radiated hypercholesterolemic rabbit.
Cardiovasc Radiat Med. 2003 Jan-Mar;4(1):25-8.


Saygili EI, Konukoglu D, Papila C, Akcay T. Related Articles, Links
Levels of Plasma Vitamin E, Vitamin C, TBARS, and Cholesterol in Male Patients with Colorectal Tumors.
Biochemistry (Mosc). 2003 Mar;68(3):325-8

Ok, but seriously here. I give you adult, human studies with over 30,000 participants and you responded with one study about radiated rabbits?? And another just about plant-food concentrates being antioxidant? What were we talking about here anyway? I forgot now after reviewing those studies.

Circulation is an excellent journal, and if antioxidants can improve endothelial dysfunction then they should have a benefit. I say should because they still have not been proven to, and none of those studies you cited show any benefit - particularly in cardiac disease.

I agree that the science behind antioxidant effects is convincing - starting with Linus Pauling's work with vitamin C. I will not dispute the fact that their ability to scavenge free radicals should translate into a health advantage - it just makes sense. However, for some reason, it doesn't. That's why we study these things. When I was in medical school (early 90's) everyone was stoked about antioxidants. We all thought they were going to prevent cancer, cure heart disease, prevent strokes, etc... Then they got studied like mad and it just didn't pan out. Then the "alternativists" latched on to them, made up some big conspiracy theory about traditional medicine, slapped their names on the bottles and started charging a fortune for them to those not saavy with the medical literature. And here they are today, still going - perpetuated by a self-serving industry that makes a fortune off of them, despite a shread of proof that they do something.

Anti-oxidants I'm taking are dirt cheap. If you're paying a lot for them then your foolish.

As you said, logically one would think there should be benefits. I've never read the study you're refering to but studies have been known to be flawed.

I never said that anti-oxidants are a panacea, but they make sense to me in conjunction with excercise and a healthful diet.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Saulbadguy
It would be neat if there was someone on ATOT who is "in the know" about vitamins/nutrional supplements. I have quite a few questions. Calling any experts?

Here's an interesting article from the Harvard School of Public Health:

Vitamins

 

[The Sauce]

Well I certainly won't dispute your right to spend your money any way that you want. And if there is one good thing to the whole alternative scene is that it does tend to promote a healthier lifestyle in terms of exercise and diet. However, be aware - the supplements you purchase are not regulated or controlled in any way. There is no quality control as there is for virtually anything else. A recent study showed that on analyzing various healthfood store supplements - in one batch 4-out-of-9 differrent manufacturers supplements did not even contain a trace of the substance that was being advertised on the label. Only one or two actually contained a significant amount. So you are likely not even be taking what you think you are paying for in the first place, scientific research and such aside. The supplement industry is full of some of the biggest swindlers around and they make crazy money doing it, because it's not regulated.

 

[The Sauce]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Saulbadguy
It would be neat if there was someone on ATOT who is "in the know" about vitamins/nutrional supplements. I have quite a few questions. Calling any experts?

Here's an interesting article from the Harvard School of Public Health:

Vitamins

Yah, all of that makes good sense. People should take a multivitamin. Deficiencies are present in our society, especially with the average American diet.

 

[Riprorin]

So, you agree that supplements are necessary.

By saying that we should all take a multi-vitamin, are you suggesting that everyones supplementation needs are the same?

Kind of the one-size-fits-all approach to diet and nutrition?

 

[StatisticianOG]

"How do you go about finding a good doctor who's up on alternative treatments, ie is not sold out to the drug companies?"

I know that most doctors are open to talking about other treatments. I noticed that in my Kaiser handbook there are sections on other treatments, and also in their video and book library at the Kaiser building.

I would think that doctors would be more open to discussing treatments like taijiquan, yoga, qigong, vitamin C, and green tea, rather than faith healing and sacrificing small forest animals.

 

[The Sauce]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
So, you agree that supplements are necessary.

By saying that we should all take a multi-vitamin, are you suggesting that everyones supplementation needs are the same?

In the utter absence of any data to the contrary, yes. I think everyone should breathe air and drink water too. That's my one-size-fits-all approach to breathing and drinking. No one has convincingly proven that breathing more air or drinking more water helps things either unless you happen to already be deficient in water or air (or unless you have kidney stones, then drinking more water helps). Taking a multivitamin is no different, there is simply no data to suggest that taking more helps anything (unless you are already deficient), and plenty to suggest that it doesn't (as outlined above). Nothing on that site is outside the standard of current medical knowledge or practice.

I would think that doctors would be more open to discussing treatments like taijiquan, yoga, qigong, vitamin C, and green tea, rather than faith healing and sacrificing small forest animals.

There is excellent data to suggest that sacrificing small forest animals and inserting them anally can reduce the incidence of colorectal cancer. Jeez, where have you guys been?