Originally posted by: vi edit
Originally posted by: SirStev0
Originally posted by: vi edit
I'm sure that for some people, for certain problems, in select situations they work.
But for most people, with most problems, and in many situations they don't.
The problem isn't the solution. It's figuring out what the problem is. Which many homeopathic therapies tend to ignore or flat out get wrong.
Don't know much about modern pharmacology do you...
I'm married to a pharmacist if that counts for anything. Can you elaborate a little more on what your point is?
All I'm saying is that if we don't really know what the problem is, throwing any sort of solution at it is nothing but a guessing game.
Take the upset infant for example. Is it gas? Is it acid reflux? Is it lactose intolerance? Is it a bowel obstruction? An allergy to something in the mothers milk? What if they just have a cold and are swollowing lots of mucus?
Many drugs we have work on the same theory. Your description is a vary basic approach to disease management that is routinely used. What happened when you were a kid and you went to the doctor with a sore throat. They threw antibiotics in you and hoped for the best. Maybe they ran a few tests to limit the possibilities.
You look at the symptoms and go with the most probably diagnosis. If that doesn't work, look again, re-evaluate and try again. It is called modern medicine.
There are also many medicines that work by easing symptoms not curing problems. Consider arthritis and blood pressure meds. They don't cure the disease, they make it livable. Chinese medicine has similar treatments.
I am not an advocate of every "alternative" medicine or homeopathic cure, but I am open to considering them and not blowing them off.
Consider Acupuncture which has been practiced since the Before Common Era. If it was completely mumbojumbo would it have lasted? Is it based on studies and fact? No, probably not. But does it work? It would have to do something.
Again, I am not one of those tinfoil scrubs wearing future doctors. but there is something to be said about drugs, especially in the United States. The regulation and control of studies and drugs basically lies in the hands of people who make money off of them.
There is a huge ethical issue with the presentation of information on drugs and their overall effectiveness. Alzheimer's drugs are a great example. They are being prescribed like candy, but there are a lot of questions about their safety and more importantly the actual advantage they give. I had a professor who showed us a great graph distributed with a study showing that a certain drug helped patients regain cognitive return. If you looked closely at the information presented, you saw that they were presenting only a small portion of that graph. In actuality the drug did very little compared to the control. If you just took them at their word, it seemed like they basically cured the disease. If this drug did so little why was it being prescribed? What purpose did it serve?
Facebook
Twitter