
Originally Posted by
sinista63
as far as why the medical community ignores alternative medicine is because a lot of us are skeptics. if a rep comes to me and is bugging me that some new drug is the medical equivalent of christ, my first words to her are "show me". there are a lot of great theories out there but the bottom line is show me an impact on the patient population. this is where alternative medicine stumbles a lot. this is either through a lack of positive outcomes in their studies or a lack of studies in general. and i have heard the argument before that only the big pharma companies have the money to carry out trials. bullshit. the alternative medicine industry makes billions of dollars/year. i vaguely remember the number $4 billion as far as what kind of money the alternative medicine industry brings in/yr... and this was a number from a few years ago. the kicker is that they bring in this type of money without spending almost any on research. i don't necessarily agree with big pharma companies making the kind of money they do, but i can't fault them for the amount of cash they blow on research. for one drug to come to market, a pharma co. can spend anywhere from $500 mil to 1 bil (again... these were numbers from a few years ago, i don't have recent numbers) on research alone. and this doesn't guarantee that the drug ends up being approved by the FDA. for every drug that comes to market, there are many that didn't make it past phase II trials. with the type of money alternative medicine brings in/yr, they could get some researchers together and pump out at least a few WELL DESIGNED studies showing that what consumers are buying isn't a modern-day snake oil. perhaps they are afraid of losing their cash cow. it should be interesting to see what happens to echinacea with the most recent findings. even though i wasn't much surprised after one study cast doubt on its effectiveness a few years ago (i believe it was out of Germany... 98 or 99... sometime around there). but i digress. without clinical studies, all we're left with are theories and testimonials. although these might give us something to work with in the absence of good evidence, they should not be a replacement for well-designed studies. i don't care how many thousands of years some herb from china has been used, if it hasn't been studied, i have doubts. even in allopathic medicine theories are used. but then they are studied, and practice changes if need be. a good example is the use of lidocaine for arrhythmia prophylaxis in patients with a heart attack. for a while physicians were giving it to all patients coming in with a heart attack because it seemed to reduce the incidence of ventricular fibrillation. studies later found that the administration of lidocaine emperically actually increased mortality. this practice was then stopped. the bottom line is that if the alternative medicine industry would get their products studied the way that they should be, it wouldn't be as "alternative" as it is.