Articles

111 thoughts on “Why Do People turn to Alternative Medicine

  1. Scott says:

    It’s exactly that sort of statement that really makes me wonder whether you’re being honest. You go on and on about how, since real medicine doesn’t have all the ideal answers, CAM is both necessary and appropriate (even though it has no answers at all) and therefore must be legitimatized. But you don’t want to admit that giving NDs prescribing rights is part and parcel of that legitimization.

    Even worse, this claim

    And this despite the fact that everybody already knows that naturopathy is unscientific, or is considered so by doctors and most scientists.

    is patently false, and shows that you’re either (a) completely clueless, (b) grossly dishonest, or (c) so blinded by your ideological commitment to quackery that you simply assume whatever is necessary to support that. NO, THE GENERAL PUBLIC DOES NOT KNOW THAT NATUROPATHY IS UNSCIENTIFIC – OR THAT IT DOESN’T WORK. They believe it IS in all ways comparable to real medicine, because doctors and politicians accommodate and tolerate it just as you advocate.

  2. nybgrus says:

    Gasp!!!!! I have on these very pages and very recently violently opposed naturopaths being recognized as primary care practitioners (PCPs), with similar privileges to doctors.

    Gasp!! And on these very pages you have maligned the role of legislative regulation as a means of doing anything useful in regards to CAM. Yet how do you propose we not recognize NDs as PCPs if we don’t refuse to license them as medical practitioners?

    everybody already knows that naturopathy is unscientific, or is considered so by doctors and most scientists.

    [citation needed]

  3. nybgrus says:

    I have to be fair and I have to chime in and say I think Scott is being a bit overdramatic and overselling what pmoran is trying to say. I don’t think he wishes to accomodate and tolerate naturopaths exactly as you say, but I more disagree in degree rather than in substance.

    I would have to say that the fact that there is licensure for naturopathy along with all the other trappings – including cancer institutes, working side-by-side with actual oncologists, and their own oncology board – certainly do indicate that a significant portion of the public and their government representatives believe naturopathy to be a scientific discipline that can and should operate alongside actual medicine.

    I don’t think pmoran actually wants this to be the case, but I do agree that his accomodationist/apologist (insert whatever term you feel most comfortable with since he is pretty nebulous on these topics) is what allows it to happen.

  4. pmoran says:

    David has entered the discussion with one of his jibes, so there could be no better time to mention “straw men”.

    SBM has them. Perhaps not REALLY bad ones, but cobblings together of half-truths, exaggerations, over-generalizations, over-simplifications, and small misunderstandings concerning CAM that we then base our rhetoric and other reactions upon. Some are very subtle. They certainly strain my vocabulary .

    They derive from the approximations and declamations of normal human discourse, which can develop a life of their own when constantly echoed and never challenged within an intensely tribal environment such as this. Everyone knows that the least departure from the party line will provoke hostile reactions, insult and being called names.

    So I have to say again, that a more accurate understanding of CAM, why people do it, and what they might get out of it, is not the same thing as wholesale approval. It may lead to less hostility to those engaged in it, but it is arguable whether trench warfare is the ideal strategy when dealing with CAM, anyway.

  5. pmoran says:

    Nybgrus:“Gasp!!!!! I have on these very pages and very recently violently opposed naturopaths being recognized as primary care practitioners (PCPs), with similar privileges to doctors.”

    Gasp!! And on these very pages you have maligned the role of legislative regulation as a means of doing anything useful in regards to CAM. Yet how do you propose we not recognize NDs as PCPs if we don’t refuse to license them as medical practitioners?

    ??? (that last sentence) Anyhow, I simply see legislation as having limited reach. As we try to control something like CAM with tighter and tighter legislation, resistance will increase asymptotically. We, meaning doctors and scientists, do not have sufficient public trust to be given absolute discretion over what treatments they may have access to or what medical claims are allowed. We will be afforded patchy control.

    everybody already knows that naturopathy is unscientific, or is considered so by doctors and most scientists.

    [citation needed]

    Yes, that is an unwise over-generalization from me. I was thinking of the politicians, wherein even those promoting naturopathy will be aware of the scientific opposition to it.

    Still, there are enough clues around that everyone else ought to know this. An Internet search on “naturopathy” and “scientific” yields this near the very top “— scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease –” Where would you go to avoid encountering such opinions?

  6. pmoran says:

    Formatting fixed — (I hope).

    Nybgrus:“Gasp!!!!! I have on these very pages and very recently violently opposed naturopaths being recognized as primary care practitioners (PCPs), with similar privileges to doctors.”

    Gasp!! And on these very pages you have maligned the role of legislative regulation as a means of doing anything useful in regards to CAM. Yet how do you propose we not recognize NDs as PCPs if we don’t refuse to license them as medical practitioners?

    ??? (that last sentence) Anyhow, I simply see legislation as having limited reach. As we try to control something like CAM with tighter and tighter legislation, resistance will increase asymptotically. We, meaning doctors and scientists, do not have sufficient public trust to be given absolute discretion over what treatments they may have access to or what medical claims are allowed. We will be afforded patchy control.

    “everybody already knows that naturopathy is unscientific, or is considered so by doctors and most scientists.”

    [citation needed]

    Yes, that is an unwise over-generalization from me. I was thinking of the politicians, wherein even those promoting naturopathy will be aware of the scientific opposition to it.

    Still, there are enough clues around that everyone else ought to know this. An Internet search on “naturopathy” and “scientific” yields this at the very top “— scientific evidence does not support claims that naturopathic medicine can cure cancer or any other disease –” Where would you go to avoid encountering such opinions?

  7. weing says:

    “Where would you go to avoid encountering such opinions?”
    Naturopaths and their websites. At SBM websites you might encounter such opinions. But then you’ll also find the apologizers of CAM and might come to the conclusion that science is divided and these are just opinions and not fact.

  8. Pingback: warp_net_site

Comments are closed.