Every new drug introduced into practice is an "alternative medicine." They're just able to establish its efficacy. Ibuprofen was once an alternative medicine. It was an alternative to aspirin.
If you have an alternative medicine that you think is useful, prove it. That's how it's done in evidence-based medicine. And that's how it should be done. Pharmacotherapy is too important a field to allow frauds to ruin it.
Lulz, sure fine, i guess it depends on what you mean by "alternative" medicine since i don't think the doctors have it correct when their solution to most problems is, "PRESCRIBE! PRESCRIBE!!"
Also i think they're completely wrong when it comes to cancer treatments such as chemotherapy.
I'm no trained professional, but if i was i wouldn't even be allowed to look at POSSIBLE alternatives without serious consequences, at least according to my current understanding of how that field works.
Well, first i'd like to state right now that i'm not a medical professional, i'm a layman on the street so i already know and accept that i can be completely 100% wrong, and i'd be more then happy to change my mind if i am wrong.
That said, I think the problem specifically with treatments such as chemo, at least to my current understanding, is that it's looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
To explain, if i'm not mistaken, the body usually on it's own fights and destroys...(cont.)
(cont.)... cancer cells on it's own, since cancer forms due to damaged or mistakes in DNA coding of the cell, again according to my understanding so far. So, naturally, i think it's fair to assume that under normal conditions that the human body is equipped to deal with cancer.
So assuming what i just said is true, and it very well may not be, wouldn't the question be what causes the conditions in the body that makes it unable to destroy the cancerous tumors?
Now, i think it's safe to say, that healthy conditions in the body that would destroy and prevent cancer in the first place is not a state in which the body was filled with toxic chemicals that attack the problem areas and bad areas alike, at least if i'm correct about that. Isn't it true the chemicals used in chemo attack a multitude of cells other then just the tumor?
I guess my real grievance is that i think chemo might end up doing... (cont.)
For instance, one such way the body fights cancer on its own is via tumor suppressor genes: genes that have multiple ways of keeping cells with erroneous DNA from dividing. Probably the most researched of these is p53 ... but the issue is that in a lot of tumors, p53 is found to be mutated. Therefore, it can't function properly and even inhibits normal p53. I think increasing the body's healthy p53 count is an ongoing research topic.
And to address your other point: no, actually the chemotherapy used according to the guidelines help the patients more than they hurt them. They just happen to be the drugs with some of the worst adverse effects ... which is another part of drug development. One of the main motivation for finding new agents is to improve on the side effects of previous agents.
Nice clip. :)
MrSonicAdvance 2 years ago
ahaha so true.
jmsimpson11 2 years ago
Every new drug introduced into practice is an "alternative medicine." They're just able to establish its efficacy. Ibuprofen was once an alternative medicine. It was an alternative to aspirin.
If you have an alternative medicine that you think is useful, prove it. That's how it's done in evidence-based medicine. And that's how it should be done. Pharmacotherapy is too important a field to allow frauds to ruin it.
faraz1729 2 years ago 2
Lulz, sure fine, i guess it depends on what you mean by "alternative" medicine since i don't think the doctors have it correct when their solution to most problems is, "PRESCRIBE! PRESCRIBE!!"
Also i think they're completely wrong when it comes to cancer treatments such as chemotherapy.
I'm no trained professional, but if i was i wouldn't even be allowed to look at POSSIBLE alternatives without serious consequences, at least according to my current understanding of how that field works.
Bluedragon094 2 years ago
What's wrong with chemo?
silverstream314 2 years ago
Well, first i'd like to state right now that i'm not a medical professional, i'm a layman on the street so i already know and accept that i can be completely 100% wrong, and i'd be more then happy to change my mind if i am wrong.
That said, I think the problem specifically with treatments such as chemo, at least to my current understanding, is that it's looking at the problem from the wrong perspective.
To explain, if i'm not mistaken, the body usually on it's own fights and destroys...(cont.)
Bluedragon094 2 years ago
(cont.)... cancer cells on it's own, since cancer forms due to damaged or mistakes in DNA coding of the cell, again according to my understanding so far. So, naturally, i think it's fair to assume that under normal conditions that the human body is equipped to deal with cancer.
So assuming what i just said is true, and it very well may not be, wouldn't the question be what causes the conditions in the body that makes it unable to destroy the cancerous tumors?
(cont.)
Bluedragon094 2 years ago
Comment removed
Bluedragon094 2 years ago
(cont.) (the comments are acting funny, sorry)
Now, i think it's safe to say, that healthy conditions in the body that would destroy and prevent cancer in the first place is not a state in which the body was filled with toxic chemicals that attack the problem areas and bad areas alike, at least if i'm correct about that. Isn't it true the chemicals used in chemo attack a multitude of cells other then just the tumor?
I guess my real grievance is that i think chemo might end up doing... (cont.)
Bluedragon094 2 years ago
I meant the good areas and bad areas in this. My bad.
Bluedragon094 2 years ago
(cont.) ... more damage then actually helping the cancer patient.
But again, maybe i'm wrong.
However, to just brush aside possible, KEYWORD: possible, alternatives to chemo and call it rubbish i think is just a LITTLE too hasty.
Then again, i'm just a layman on the street, what to i really know?
I didn't go through med school, but oh well. I guess that's just my thoughts on the topic at hand.
Btw, that deleted message was a re-post of part 1 of this reply. Comments are acting screwy.
Bluedragon094 2 years ago
"I think they're completely wrong when it comes to cancer treatments such as chemotherapy."
Haha. Please do elaborate.
faraz1729 2 years ago
Sure, i pretty much just did in the reply to silverstream. Just look up and have at it.
Bluedragon094 2 years ago
That's a good question.
For instance, one such way the body fights cancer on its own is via tumor suppressor genes: genes that have multiple ways of keeping cells with erroneous DNA from dividing. Probably the most researched of these is p53 ... but the issue is that in a lot of tumors, p53 is found to be mutated. Therefore, it can't function properly and even inhibits normal p53. I think increasing the body's healthy p53 count is an ongoing research topic.
faraz1729 2 years ago
And to address your other point: no, actually the chemotherapy used according to the guidelines help the patients more than they hurt them. They just happen to be the drugs with some of the worst adverse effects ... which is another part of drug development. One of the main motivation for finding new agents is to improve on the side effects of previous agents.
faraz1729 2 years ago
lol brilliant
totdos 2 years ago
And funny enough... its acctually Quite true :P
C0ldking 2 years ago
Circular logic FTW!
namnack 2 years ago