Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathStorm  A phrase I recall her telling me was
"Western medicine tries to cure the symptoms, but these will keep coming back unless you tackle the root of the problems."
I don't know how true that statement was, and I find it a bit hard to believe that an internationally recognized method that has been around for so long time would not at least attempt to address the causes of a disease.
Do you think that pharmaceuticals are only a "quick fix" and that the body could really "heal itself"? |
Our bodies are extremely resilient and in most cases can repair themselves. Much of the time the medication we take simply makes it easier for our body to do their job, or even more commonly it seems, makes it easier for us to handle the stress of being sick (e.g., cold and flu medication with paracetamol, codeine, pseudoephedrine, or some combination of the above, doesn't do anything about the virus. It just makes us feel better, eh Angela
)
So yes, many pharms are a quick fix, precisely
because the body can heal itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathStorm What do you think about them?
And - if they are really as efficient as they are claimed to be - why aren't they overtaking or at least included in western medicine/national health services? |
Alternative medicine is subject to very few checks and balances. There's almost nothing to show that a practitioner who proscribes such medication, or any such medication bought off the shelf, is any better than doing nothing. There's a wealth of anecdotal evidence, but there's also a wealth of anecdotal evidence that black cats bring bad luck. There's also some scientific studies of things such as acupuncture, but no firm conclusions either way (at least none I'm aware of).
It seems current medical paradigm is ruled by a combination of science, tradition, politics and finance. That's a powerful combination. Alternative medicine would have to be extremely convincing in order to be included into that paradigm, or the paradigm would have to be overthrown. Efforts at inclusion are getting somewhere, I believe, at least as far as scientist's real interest in things like the healthful effects of meditation and acupuncture are concerned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathStorm Are all pharmaceuticals accompanied by adverse effects?
Do you think the non-Western medicines are less risky in that sense? |
Frankly, no. Pharmaceuticals are all required to list their possible side effects. Even if they're unlikely. These are determined from large studies. The warnings also include contraindications. No such requirement for alternative medicine as far as I'm aware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angela funny that you bring this up. I took a 12-hour sudafed for the first time today and I am w-a-a-a-a-a-s-ted!!! |
Hehehe, druggy!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shamou In order to be called a medical drug... the substance has to have some poison in it... if it is not poisonous... it is not a medical drug... |
Do you mean that the active ingredient in most medications could be poisonous if taken in a high enough dose? At the recommended doses most medications, especially OTC ones, are harmless. The average body is well equipped to deal with any adverse effects, which usually just involves cleaning up any potentially harmful metabolites (by-products of the breakdown of the drug), and this can happen without stressing the bodily systems involved.
But of course sometimes an individual's body can't deal with the drug that well, so there may be side-effects.