Acupuncture Study: Beneficial for breast cancer side effects

[Justforfun000]

Oh and after doing a Google search, I discovered that Pain Rack is not going to find the information I alluded to in regards to people like "Neuropaths". They now have a specific branch of conventional medicine that has adopted the term. The original Neuropaths were of a different training background and they did many types of manipulation therapy somewhat reminiscent of Chiropractic or Osteopathy that directly affected the nervous system. Since I can't get the references online, it's a bit difficult to argue that facet of the argument, so strike it for now.

[PainRack]

Well you have the right to your viewpoint of course, but others who wish to experiment based on their own reponsibility should have the right to do so. That's the main point I'm professing here.

Well, like I said, I feel that's more of a policy discussion and would depend on society willingness for product regulation.

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it", is only applicable if conventional methods always HAVE the best option on the table. Many times they don't. Many times they don't have anything to offer at all.

Other than the irritating "conventional" vs "alternative" crap again, let's just say that in many cases, what you feel is "lacking" isn't really. The huge plethora of remedies available nowadays is simply staggering, even if we were to ignore fringe movements such as accupuncture.

It's not redefining drugs. I understand your point in regards to chemicals, but the research to date supports the idea that in GENERAL herbs are milder in effect as well as side effects, but that might be the trade-off for something with enough efficacy to be therapeutic and not problematic in terms of unwanted toxicity.

Except that you first NEED to compare such treatments to their counterparts and SHOW that it has less side-effects/toxicity/ADR. Frankly, there ISN"T. You're simply using a general term and claiming that herbal medicines are less toxic, when compared to severely toxic drugs such as tamoxin and etc. That's comparing apples to oranges.

If you want to argue this in a more specific case, then tackle my example of the Ortho-Liver formula I mentioned above. Just one of the ingredients, Metadoxine, has some very well researched studies behind it and it's mixed with other substances (herbs mostly) that are only available currently as an herbal supplement. Do you have a pharmaceutical that can replace this? If not, then how can you argue against this being a valid choice for people who choose to take it for what it's worth?

NAC, NAC, NAC. Fluminicil, Fluminicl, fluminicl. Also, I like to point out that doctors are even so intelligent nowadays that they try NOT to use drugs to boost liver function, instead using a more holistic approach such as medication titration and scheduling and diet.

Fair enough with the Horny Goat Weed, (and I love the name.. ), but as the article itself said, it again was typical of many other herbal based products that are currently being used either in it's natural state, or slightly modified purification form that are demonstrating comparable efficacy with fewer sides.

What ARE the side effects of viagra? Oh wait, heart events. Same thing.

You can't keep dismissing this by just claiming "THEY ARE ALL JUST CHEMICALS IN THE END.."..the evidence is not supporting that as being necessarily true. Ultimately, it all depends.

Yes I can. Paracetemol has literally no side effects whatsoever and only a potential ADR when consumed in excess. Since doctors can schedule the standard BUN and ALT/AST test, there isn't even a major problem.
Its just CHEMICALS. You're essentially claiming that herbs have lesser toxicity/side effects by comparing them to DANGEROUS drugs. Wow! What's next? Driving without a safety belt is obviously safer when one considers how many people die in an airplane crash!

Well what is the standard you feel is necessary? The company AOR has some very impressive credentials in reference to their products and the science behind them. They may be less then the millions of dollars necessary to market them as a pharmaceutical, but they are far from worthless. Technically here in Canada, they have ALREADY passed your criteria because they have passed those tests, because if I'm not mistaken all supplements have to apply for a DIN number..but I may be mistaken in this...I'll have to do some more research on that end.

I have no idea what your policy is in the States or Canada, but the equivalent here is product registration with a statutory board, although I can't remember what the hell that is. If its not approved, pharmacies can't carry it, although as usual, the roundabout way is to market it via the beauty industry and nutritional supplements. Even so, they still have to undergo product testing to determine safety and content, although not efficacy.

In any case though, fuck..we sell things that are definitely HARMFUL without any concern as to it's medical effect. Who the hell could market Coca Cola as "healthy"?

Coke does not have the potential to poison someone. Furthermore, you're comparing the Food policy to the Drug policy. Which brings us back again to how the US has traditionally handled such alternative supplements.

Let alone something like alcohol..these are choices we make as adults and if we're allowed to poison ourselves with bottles of Gin week to week, why should the government have the right to restrict our access to products like herbs that might very well have real health promoting properties? It'd be more then hypocritical to do this.

Because said products do not make false claims. To put it simply, if someone was to give you an electromagnet and claim it will cure you of cancer, are you going to say caveat emptor and thus absolve the saleperson of product fraud?
I understand your stance, but it rests primarily on the willingness of society to regulate and license products. Bringing up red herrings is not an argument. What matters here is the decision on whether to allow the sale of products which may or may not work. Zod and I are in favour of increased testing and regulation, you are in favour of relaxed regulations and increased testing.

[PainRack]

Now THAT comment I would take strong issue with. You have no right to make such a definitive statement, and no medical researcher worth their salt would either.

Then they're quacks too. Nobody I know would believe that manipulating bones would cure you of the cold. The entire subclux and etc is entirely unsupported by biology.

What you're referring to is nerve manipulation with regards to pain and other pyschosomatic issues. EVEN here, the basic theory of chiropracy is unsupported by biology and thus requires a major review in order to bring it aligned with science, even if the METHODs do work.

The facet of Chiropractic that deals with neuropathic concern may be in it's infancy in the sense of clinical studies verifying that branch, but disease, (or dis-ease, which is really the simplest breakdown of the term and encompasses many disorders of the human body), is an extremely complex thing and, nerve impulses emanating from the spine, the brachial plexus, etc.. are NOT irrelevant. They could very well be a causative or contributing factor to many diseases. It's just a very poorly understood and woefully understudied facet of medicine.

Right. Obviously, cancer, septicanaemia and other diseases which was once treated by chiropractors are vulnerable to nerve manipulation.

And frankly, even if it does have some minor effect such as on peripheral vasodilation and the like, so what? The huge plethora of drugs and other devices available more than supplant it.

Back in the days when there were actual physicians of different makeups that included people like Neuropaths, there was a lot more knowledge that was on the table before the mainstream conventional doctors became the one and only camp. Everything else was tossed out the window, and the knowledge lost was staggering. People like you would undoubtedly argue that they just tossed out the shit and concentrated on what was worthwhile, but that would be an assumption, not a definite fact.

Except that these mysterious nexus points which can improve blood circulation and unblock nerve blockages.......... have never been seen. Or disease should had been more rampant since the underlying factors which cause such problems haven't been removed from society.

The more current theory which abandons such mystical nonsense might as well be subsumed under physiotherapy and sports medicine.

Drugs changed the entire paradigm of medicine, and many therapies that practiced more integrative care of many different modalities were simply ignored and shoved to the wayside. They weren't disproved, they were simply IGNORED.

Right. That's why we're using leeches, talking about diet, vegetables and fruits for cancer prevention and etc. Hell, maybe you should look into obsetrics and see the kind of "old" practices that's still in use there out of tradition.
You're attacking a very old model of medicine.