Be Excellent To Each Other

*** WARNING! APRICOT STONES ARE LETHALLY POISONOUS AND CAN CAUSE DEATH IF INGESTED - SEEK PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL ADVICE BEFORE USING ***


OK, from BnB... please note that I am *NOT* saying 'this definitely works' or anything really, but there does seem to be a great deal of this particular one on the web, my very scientifically minded and sober business partner mentioned it to me, it costs nowt, can't do any harm that I can see and *might* just help someone here.


...Talking of alternative cancer cures, I understand that raw, non sun dried apricot stones can be effective. Yes, really.

http://www.naturalnews.com/027088_cance ... ealth.html

I'm sure I'll be shot down in flames here by Doc and others, but I thought I'd share this with you all anyway - you never know. (I'm intrigued as to the source of this knowledge - my very sober-minded and arch skeptical business partner, who is the last person on Earth to fall for any foolishness of any kind, very unlike myself of course. His mother in law's terminal, post treatment lung cancer was apparently 'cured' via this method).

If anyone else has had any experience of effective 'alternative' medicine or practices and/or has any further information re. the above (other than 'you're a gullible twat Cavey, I'm surprised at you' type responses, I'd appreciate it, thanks.

Cavey

And just to catch up on this one:





OK, just to understand, this was entirely about pain relief rather than any cancer-repelling properties to mop up after the surgery?

That makes more sense now

Ah, I'll put it in here then:

My god Cavey, that link is utter shite. The closest it gets to anything resembling verifiable data is

"There are many success stories from people using just laetrile or apricot pit kernels."

And not only that, it goes on to suggesting that a suitable complementary therapy would be PUTTING COFFEE UP YOUR BUM.

Link to a site that isn't written by lunatic morons who think the pharmaceutical industry is a shady Illuminati style money making greed-o-corp, and I'll have a read.

Oh, and facts, statistics, etc.

And absolutely not trying to cause offence, but even steady-minded science sceptic-types can get it wrong when a dying loved-one is involved.

Wow, you went done it.

*throws poop*

Seeing Cavey start this thread makes me think I'm in an alternative universe, so why not?

Homeopathy aside, why shouldn't alternative medicine work? Most drugs are plant derived, yes?

Yes. By mentals. Who PUT COFFEE UP THEIR BUM.

Don't make me quote Dara O'Brien at you.

Do it. I'm wearing my sarcasm proof pants

Clearly a lot of it does "work". All the fuss is around how wise it is to take (potentially quite powerful drugs) based on what is quite often old wives tales or hearsay from people with little or no medical understanding, using products that are not regulated and perhaps not even well understood.

Bah. What about those we haven't tested. Or indeed, shoved up our arses

Okay, I'm biting.

It's very hard to take that paragraph seriously when you've got a collection of adverts for homoeopathic medicine "FOR SALE HERE" right next to it.

Is that related to teabagging?

Poo: Flung.

Homoeopathy is generally about very small, diluted doses. Also, as Craster says - we've tested proper medicine extensively and we know it works.

This isn't a homeopathy thread though, it's an alternative medicine thread.

Ah right. Falls under the umbrella though.

Yeah. Even Cavey isn't enough of a space monkey to have any faith in homeopathy though....














(dangles bait hopefully)

Homepoathy is an alternative to medicine.

*sniff, sniff*

Oooh, that Cavey-bait is sure tempting; the forum equivalent of a Toblerone bar and a steaming cup of Builders Brew spec tea. Mmm, Toblerone.

(Actually, I *did* find a homeopathic cold medicine very useful a couple of years back. Whereas Lemsips and all the rest do nothing but make me feel like shite, this did the job. Of course, could well have been a pure coincidence and/or placibo effect. Nice choc, Craster!)

Penn & Teller offer an opinion...

(only 1st 1/3rd of it but worth a watch)

To be serious for a second, I'm totally with you on this mate, but I suspect we could have an uphill struggle on our hands here.

Not watched that, but I have to say P&T tend to come across as smug right-wing twats when they start preaching about stuff like this. So won't watch just in case, to avoid spoiling entertainment value of their magic shows.

Fuck, really?

/clicks link



EDIT - actually, your assessment was right, Kalmar. 'ALL alternative medicine is 100% BS, even chiropractors are all quacks, and anyone who has the slightest belief in the efficacy of any of it, is a gullible wanker'. Whatever, guys.

We've just started Bullshit from the first season. I may well be bodyswerving some of the nuttier episodes for fear of having then spoilerised.

On the subject of alternative medicine you have to factor in regression to the mean and the placebo effect for anything that purportedly "works" without any scientific basis.

Without the chiropractor bit, that's a pretty good rule to go by, to be fair.

/watches

I tend to agree, but there again, what's the big deal about buying a pound of fresh apricots at Sainsburys?

(That said, I read elsewhere that there are toxicity issues with apricot seeds and if you eat too many, too fast, this can even kill you).

Oh right - that thinking of chiropracty (sp). Agree with all of that, then

Well, I know for a fact that my chiropractor massively helped me when I slipped my disc, so for that reason alone they can GTFF and lose all credibility from my POV.

Much of it could be BS for all I know, but I'll always listen to people who have direct experience of something that helped them, something that might be rooted in 'ancient wisdom' (the basis of which is the genesis of many modern drug treatments, as Kalmar has noted) and particularly if there's nothing in it for them. For me, it's called having an open mind; for others, it's called being a gullible twat.

I have a great belief in the efficacy of a lot of alternative medicine, however I believe the culture surround its use is extremely dangerous.

Those who advocate it strongly rarely have any idea of why the particular products have the effect they do, nor do they have any grasp of the potential effects on other conditions people may have or how multiple supplements can interact. Dosages are also poorly understood. When was the last time you saw "If you are taking XYZ or have high blood pressure, consult your doctor before using this product" on a bag of ginseng from a Chinese health centre?

One recent example was St. John's Wort. It was the favoured remedy of choice for every condition under the Sun a few years ago, until it was provably linked to significant amounts of cases of clinical depression and even suicides.

Overall, more dangerous than helpful.

In my limited experience, alternative medicine tends to be limited to "easing" fairly low-level stuff that will get better by itself anyway. Like, a sore throat, some skin complaint, you know the kind of thing.

So whilst you "could" go and get some powerful antibiotic or steroid cream from the doctor, a lot of people avoid those treatments because they are afraid of side-effects (which is fair enough if you actually read the list in the box!).
The alternative whatever-berry doesn't have such a warning, seems "natural" so people feel better about it.

That kind of thing I'm marginally OK with - I mean there's limited potential for harm, it's probably a waste of money worst case. There is of course a lot of quackery out there on the internet though, and perhaps not surprising that people lump it all into the "dangerous bullshit lunacy" category.

There's limited harm if you're a healthy person. That ceases to be the case if you have a heart condition, reduced liver function etc etc.

Conceded!

I can't recommend the book Bad Science by Ben Goldacre enough.

It explains a lot of why people believe in the efficacy of basically non-effective remedies through the strength of the placebo effect (i.e it's so powerful that it has been shown that if a Doctor prescribing a placebo believes in it then the patient can show alleviated symptoms) and how regression to the mean explains the symptoms going away but it being attributed to whatever remedy has been taken.

I firmly believe that there is no scientific basis for it to work but it does work because people believe it will work.

That's all well and good Trousers, but as I and others have stated, the genesis of a great many 'modern science' medicines is rooted in alternative medicine practices. Even now, the research into the efficacy of herbal plant remedies of even deeply primitive civilsations goes unabated, often with some success, so I am to understand.

Thus, to write off all alternative medicine, in its complete entirely as total bunkum/no more effective than placebo is, frankly, both arrogant and wrong.

(Still, I'd expect nothing less from your goodself, you hippy. OHO. <--- Joke )

I watched a programme about this on the TV a while back. Well it was more sort of natural useful things like earwax remover and so on.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't penicillin sort of natural being mold?

You're talking about homeopathy here. Or, well, non-effective "remedies" as you say. That's one sub-set.

There is another category of stuff that does contain active ingredients, that do affect your body in some way!

It is indeed JC mate, as opposed to a sythesized chemical. It is a naturally occurring organism which has to be 'grown' in massive tanks.

Garlic apparently has antibiotic properties and was widely used in the 19th century and well before that for this specific purpose.

Sorry yes. My bad - I'm lumping the lot together.

Olbas oil is a fucking god send for instance.

In my mind, there is no doubt that some products and methods, not currently classed as 'medicine', and hence qualifying as 'Alternative Medicine' may work to remedy a problem. And of course alternative therapies do pass over to the mainstream But the main problems I can think of off the top of my head are:

1) As an unchecked, unregulated and scientifically untested mechanism, the problem that you could do it wrong, create more problems from another consequence, or overdo it. See Caveys own example of potentially overdoing the apricot seeds.

2) The risk that as part of following an alternative therapy (that may be hokum) you ignore the medically recognised remedy (which isn't).

3) By relying purely on alternative diagnosis and remedies, and therefore not picking up on a more serious underlying condition until it is too late (someone I know did this with The Cancer)

That said, if there is no 'normal' remedy, or if nothing else has worked for the problem I'd try it with care.

Also, Homeopathy can cock the cock off. As can earcandles.

I didn't know they were back on youtube! They got splatted a couple of years ago. Ooh, you sod, I'ma have to watch them all again now. That programme was great.




I think calling them 'right wing' is pretty unfair. They attack a wide variety of targets on that programme, and there's far from being a simplistic left/right wing angle. They take each subject as it comes, which is the only sensible way to do it, and I respect them for that. They've also openly apologised without pressure when they found out after filming a show that they got a significant fact on it wrong.

Oh and when my cousin pijjin had leukimia (sic) they fed him tons of bananas. Something about potassium (sic).

Gaywood is going to explode when he reads this. I can only assume this thread is an evil attempt to finish him off in his weakened state. For shame, Cavey!

Also, that's not even slightly what they said. At the start of the chiropract bit they specifically say that it can help with muscular and spinal problems. They're pretty careful to qualify their "this is not true" statements, although they do obviously hyperbolic bits for comic effect. Those bits are usually signposted by calling people "asshole".

I mean, the chiropractor they interviewed claimed that it's suitable for, and that he has worked on the spines of two year olds and newborn babies. A doctor doing that would be struck off and possibly face criminal charges. It's partly because a lot of alternative medicine is under-, if at all, regulated, and peer review does not exist. There's no quality control, so even the people who are not trying to pass their particular treatments off as a cure-all, and act and advise their customers responsibly, knowing the limits of what they offer, are indistinguishable from the people who will ignorantly, or even knowingly harm you for financial gain.

* cracks knuckles *


The genesis of the entirety of mainstream, evidence based, modern scientific medicine comes from barbaric, preposterous insane medical practices. Blood letting, surgery, Leaches, The 4 humors and on and on.

One of the reasons Homeopathy and the like were so successful, was because whilst they did nothing to help you, 'proper' medical treatments by the doctors in the beginning stages of modern medicine actively harmed you. Sugar versus bloodletting and so on. Medicine for any illness that regresses to the mean (i.e. you'll get better on your own with enough time) will lead ingredients that do nothing being selected over ones that do something. As is easier to do harm to a person rather than benefit them.

But, this isn't an issue of alternative versus modern medicine. This is an issue of effective medicines versus non-effective ones.

The only the thing at debate is how you deduce what an efficacious medicine is. Cavey is suggesting that the word of friends and anecdotes is sufficient evidence for him to try and by proxy recommend active medical ingredients. Even for the cure for cancer.

I do not think that is safe. I think that is potentially dangerous for the individual and definitely dangerous for society.

Evidence based judgements in health are the best way to ensure medicine is both effective, safe for use and crucially amplify and maximise the effects of the medicine.

The culture of alternative medicine undermines this. It is against science and progress, proponents would agree, and hold that as a badge of honour, but it isn't "Big Pharma" they are against, but the very idea of having interest in how their cure works. In this case it's how apricot pips cure cancer, they may spout some science here and there to back themselves up, but they have little desire to to maximise and amplify that mechanism. And no desire to prove themselves wrong.

In Bad Science, Goldacre lists the top 5 or so papers in medical journals. By 'top' I mean references and cited. The ones scientists pay attention to. And they are all critical of a drug, method or practice. The scientific methods discards everything it can and celebrates the process of realising it was wrong.

Alternative medicine discards nothing.

For every well meaning apricot stone for cancer they'll be another well meaning recommendation of #top" class="postlink">lemon juice and sodium chlorite* for Crohn's disease. For every willow bark they'll be homeopaths recommending against malaria drugs and for sugar pills.

There will always be a market for short cutting the scientific method by trying something untested off an unqualified but well meaning quack and occasionally it may work. But it may just as well hinder, or harm. When you explore these alternatvie medicines you have only yourself to judge their safety and efficiency.

And whilst you may believe yourself qualified I know that I am not.

* which react together to form bleach

That's what prompted my post after that one - chiropractors are indeed skilled at fixing peoples backs. The one on their show claimed he could fix anything.

Oh yeah, sorry - the second part of that post was aimed at Cavey and Kalmar. Poor formatting on my part, there.

I fully expect a shitty email from my boss tomorrow regarding this matter.

Is he a chiropractor is his spare time?