Science Based v. Results Based Treatments for Chronic Idiopathic Symptoms

Discussion in 'Your Living Room' started by Henrysullivan, May 21, 2010.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

  1. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    I just changed the title of this thread to reflect the intention that this entire thread regards only the treatment of chronic, idiopathic symptoms, such as Meniere's, as determined by medical testing and subsequent disqualification of all known acute disorders.
     
  2. hollymm

    hollymm Me, 'in' a tree.

    Will it stop us from intense personal responses? :D
     
  3. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Just what did you mean by THAT!








    :)
     
  4. hollymm

    hollymm Me, 'in' a tree.

    ;D ;D ;D
     
  5. June-

    June- New Member

    I like the new title. The concept actually has some validity to me in that context although I would consider science to be the most results based of all. Lemme see, there should be another word but it's not coming to me now.
     
  6. hollymm

    hollymm Me, 'in' a tree.

    Somatization?
     
  7. hollymm

    hollymm Me, 'in' a tree.

    Individuals with somatization disorder claim to suffer constantly and for many years from many physical illnesses, yet they do not have any specific, diagnosed medical illnesses that can explain their symptoms. Still, these symptoms cause distress and negatively affect the individual’s ability to function day-to-day.
     
  8. June-

    June- New Member

    No, I was thinking something like 'treatments that seem to work for some people but are not yet accepted by mainstream medical community.' Is there a single word that says that? Science based and alternative treatments. I prefer and to or or versus. A person can be open to both and perhaps benefit from both as well as one or the other.
     
  9. June-

    June- New Member

    That could be all of us. Meniere's is not confirmable by anything but physicians judgement after due consideration of patient's history (mostly as told by the patient) and failure to be positively id'd as something else.
     
  10. hollymm

    hollymm Me, 'in' a tree.

    Well "v" needs to be in there so we can all argue oops! debate our side of the equation. Personally, I like yours better too June.
     
  11. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Well 'versus,' will have to remain. That is because I do view this thread as a discussion of contrasting approaches to treating chronic symptoms. I believe in the proper order, these approaches are complimentary. And I believe that there is a proper order, which order might change from individual to individual, but a proper order nonetheless. But when pursued out of order, to that extent, the pursuit of health is not served.
     
  12. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    I do view this thread as a discussion of contrasting approaches to treating chronic symptoms.

    The thing is, when a treatment actually works, it becomes medicine. The whole idea that there is "alternative" medicine is ridiculous when you think about it. Where else do people seek out an alternative? Mechanic? Lawyer? Pilot? No.

    If acupuncture, homeopathy and chiropractic was the wonder that the alt practioners make it out to be, it would just be medicine and used as such. The funny thing, as I've indicated before, is that none of these alt therapies has any diversity -- it's all water, or needles or back cracking to fix everything under that modality -- and none agree with the other. How do you rationalise that?

    S
     
  13. June-

    June- New Member

    I always thought the same thing except there is kind of a waiting room thing with medicine where treatments which were once pooh poohed by western doctors often when they finally get looked at turn out to be useful and provable. If I had the energy to do some checking I could cite a few examples but you probably can think of some yourself. The fact that somethng hasn't (yet) been proved doesn't mean it has been disproved. I put the antivirals that worked wonders for me in this category. I don't contend they are a cure for Menieres or Cochlear Hydrops, I contend they had significant curative effect on whatever I was afflicted with which was diagnosed as cochlear hydrops and I suspect someone out there would want to consider it if they weren't getting anywhere and their oto had kind of given up like mine did. So I think of that as a theory in progress and since it wasn't too dangerous I didn't want to keep suffering til definitive trials were done. Especially since we are calling these issues we have idiopathic or at least I would call mine that.
     
  14. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    Hi June,

    The fact that somethng hasn't (yet) been proved doesn't mean it has been disproved.

    Good point. But the main alt therapies have been put through the wringer already and they don't work. You have to ask yourself, how long do we keep flogging a dead horse before we should just move on? This is exactly how things work in the lab. The person who holds the hypothesis that he/she thinks works or that there is something novel in it goes out of their way to bring it down – and they usually do. When something is a dead end, we move on instead of keeping it afloat for decades/ centuries. Amazing how health attracts this. I guess it always will. Two hundred years from now, there will still be homeopaths and chiropractors talking about energy flow being disrupted and still they'll be saying, we need to do MORE research on it.

    Antivirals are plausible and makes good sense to try for an inner ear problem considering herpes DNA has been found in the neurology of the deceased in the inner ear area.

    Do you see the difference I'm getting at? Should we keep hunting for unicorns, Atlantis, the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot? They haven't been disproved. That's the category where chiropractic (NUCCA) belongs as a serious treatment for MM.

    Scott :)
     
  15. Aladdin

    Aladdin Guest

    actually it should be aliens you hunt for...as several forum members claim MM and their alient abduction go hand in hand


    ;D
     
  16. studio34

    studio34 Guest

    And for those who have not yet seen this, here's what it would be like if "alternative" therapy was used in the ER. Sometimes you only need to see something like this in action to put it all into perspective:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMGIbOGu8q0&

    S :D
     
  17. Jordan

    Jordan New Member

    Scott,

    I agree and disagree regarding alternative medicine. There are whole cultures and civilizations that have long, well-established traditions regarding traditional medicine/healing, including the Chinese, the Native Americans, the Arabs, and others -- and we cannot say that it is all baseless just because it has not been accepted into the mainstream. Mainstream medical science is not generally interested in studying the use of herbs and other techniques to cure illness. Medical doctors prescribe medicine and not herbs. Unfortunately, there is a lot of fraud surrounding traditional medicine since it is usually not regulated. This is a real danger and something that generally makes me wary of alternative treatments. But I really think there is a huge wealth of information waiting to be discovered at the hands of traditional practitioners.

    Regarding antivirals, if you browse this forum, you will find numerous stories where people tried to get a prescription from their doctor only to be told that the evidence is not there. One doctor (who knows about the various studies that have been done) just told a member of this forum that it would be "unethical" for him to prescribe antivirals for Meniere's. That is the situation most people with Meniere's find themselves in -- with no alternatives to the accepted mainstream destructive/invasive treatments for Meniere's. Most people cannot wait for medical science to catch up and are thus taking things into their own hands.
     
  18. June-

    June- New Member

    I see your point and I agree that it is also true that just because something has not been disproved doesn't mean it is true. I believe the reason God gave me a brain was so I could make differentiation between the use of unicorns and antivirals in a case like this. Sometimes judgment has to enter into decisions, not just heart or pronouncements of others or evaluation of credentials or sales pitches. I had a very well trained doctor who knew my case very well who would not open his eyes to the possibility of antivirals working though he would use histamine shots that were off label, not known (officially) to improve the situation, and by his own words took months to work but with which they had been 'having success'. Sometimes we have to make independent judgements about what the science is telling us and realize that because we don't yet understand something does not change the laws of physics.
     
  19. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    No, medicine is medicine. It comes in a bottle and is meant to control symptoms, not causes. No amount of co-opting the results-based approaches will work for you here. The decry of the scientific side against these approaches is not soon to end. One cannot decry the use of a treatment and then claim it for one's own in the same breath. And once a results-based approach becomes accepted by 'medicine,' as you call it, it would be taught in medical schools, and medical practitioners would have to learn these treatments as well. That is an admirable goal. But until that goal is achieved, medicine is medicine, and result-based empirical approaches are not.

    The notion that these approaches are all water is all water. Speaking of chiropractic, as my example, this approach deals with the cause of one's symptoms. If it did not, it would never work. As you say, it would be water. But because in those instances the symptoms in fact abate, there is no other explanation than that the treatment worked on the cause.

    I am working on your answer...
     
  20. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    I think that is a powerful post, June. Merely because science hasn't proven the efficacy of a treatment, that does not make it ineffective, which goes back to Scott's overriding assumption, which is that until science says it is so, it is not so. Until science says it is true, it is false, which of course is absurd.
     

Share This Page