Alternative Cure? Or Am I Just Hopeful?

[IMResident]

  eKatherine said:

No, actually the one problem with Western medicine is that doctors don't keep up with the research and end up being so misinformed as to be useless, unless you happen to have a popular disease.

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I think most of medicine is based on research, either past or current that is being updated all the time. 2 areas which have especially progressed at a rapid rate over the past 5-10 years are genetics and immunology.

However you can't just accept all research at face value. I think even most researchers agree that some types of studies like case reports, or non-pleacebo controled studies are pretty much useless, and the only research that is acceptable is double blind placebo controled trials.

[gfp]

  IMResident said:

I disagree wholeheartedly with this. I think most of medicine is based on research, either past or current that is being updated all the time. 2 areas which have especially progressed at a rapid rate over the past 5-10 years are genetics and immunology.

However you can't just accept all research at face value. I think even most researchers agree that some types of studies like case reports, or non-pleacebo controled studies are pretty much useless, and the only research that is acceptable is double blind placebo controled trials.

Not really, that is part of the the problem.

IMHO med school does too good a job knocking the scientist out of the prospective MD.

10 years ago medicine was 100% convinced there was no link between GERD and celiac despite over 50% of celaics sufffering GERD. I was categorically told the two were unlinked because that is what the literature said.

However how can a GI who sees hundreds of celiacs over 50% of which suffer GERD not put 2 and 2 together?

What would be the harm in screening someone with IBS and GERD for celiac?

Why do we need a double blind test when every GI dealing with celaic has hundreds of patients with the same symptoms.

You never answered my earlier question regarding if you beleive in neurological symptoms of celiac disease.

I presume that even if 1000 subjects with white matter lesions on MRI and 80% of them have celaic that you will still dismiss this until a double blind test is run.

Several of the tests are unethical anyway. How can you do a double blind test on celaics and lymphoma and the effect of a gluten free diet without forcing a group of the celaic's to not eat gluten free and even if you get volunteers we will need to wait 50 years as we did with cigarette smoke and lung cancer.

[loraleena]

Quack watch is a bunch of crap. It is slanted on the side of the drug industry. They recently got in trouble for giving out false info. This, however does not mean that every natural alternative is safe either. I read such mixed things on this stuff. Not sure what I would do.

[penguin]

I just read all of these posts...sheesh...

There is a place for western medicine and a place for alternative medicine. There are plenty of quacks and snake oil salesmen in both.

Remember that you can't believe everything you read on the internet.

[queenofhearts]

  penguin said:

There is a place for western medicine and a place for alternative medicine. There are plenty of quacks and snake oil salesmen in both.

I couldn't agree more! But there are truly good practitioners of both as well. And best (though rarest) of all are those who are open to both practices, in a spirit of genuine, humble inquiry & the search for what really works for their patients, whether or not it fits within the canon.

[corinne]

  tailz said:

Don't worry. I'm not going to take it. But if I wasn't allergic to sterling silver, you'd have a little more convincing to do because degrees don't scare me. You'd understand if you had my bozo doctors;)

I'm not trying to scare you with degrees. I've been through a number of bozo doctors as well. A degree doesn't guarantee competence. It does indicate a probability of competence. I'm just trying to say that if I have spent a large amount of time studying and doing experiments on arsenic, mercury and silver, I might know something about it and could possibly point you in the right direction.

If you want to see the effects of silver ions on the skin, drop some 1 M silver chloride on you hands. They will be black from 7-10 days until the upper layer of skin peels off (I accidentally spilled some on my hands a few years ago). Silver (mercury and arsenic too) are excellent natural antibiotics. Silver is safe externally ie in the eyes of newborns or for burn victims. It can deposit under the skin when taken internally.

[CarlaB]

  tailz said:

Carla, I think you were the one who said it helped with mastitis? I've had crusty discharge that my docs blamed on my medication. I'm thinking I may have Lyme. Did you ever have a Western Blot for Lyme? A LOT of people with Celiac's and MS are finding out they tested negative on an ELISA, but actually DID have Lyme without the classic rash...here are some symptoms, but remember, it's a gradual process, so you may not have all now, but really should be tested.

Open Original Shared Link

Open Original Shared Link

Thanks for the suggestion. That was back in 1999 that I had mastitis. We were under a lot of stress with building a house, and I kept getting mastitis (doctor diagnosed). I didn't want to keep going on anti-biotics and considered the silver to be the lesser of two evils. I didn't take the use of silver lightly, and I would never consider a regular use of it, but it helped with my problem. I did not have any other health problems at the time. I had digestive issues off and on my whole life, but in 1999 all was fine.

I'm with those who say you need a balance of so-called alternative medicine and conventional medicine. Conventional medicine seems to be a study of disease whereas alternative is usually a study of health. I don't understand the conflict between the two professions and think we would make much more progress if doctors were more balanced in their approach.

[Nancym]

I'd avoid the silver... I don't want to tarnish my reputation... (Sorry, couldn't resist the pun).

[KaitiUSA]

No cures are out there. They are working on pills to have to prevent the damage from the gluten but that is not a cure..that is taking potentially dangerous drugs every day. I would much rather stay gluten free. Some people may have symptoms at some point and then their symptoms may go away but thats normal with celiac..some people never even get symptoms. There is no cure but there are things you can maybe do to help symptoms.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

How did they diagnosis it as mastitis rather than fibrocystic breast disease? Did you have other signs of infection (sorry if you already answered that and I missed it)?

[FaithInScienceToo]

Sorry, again, but can't spend the time it would take to read ALL replies since my post - I just wanted to say - It's obvious that those who warn against a potential dangerous/deadly alternative medicine treatment have been irrationally characterized as 'against all alternative treatments' or 'as putting (all of) their faith in science' by some others on this thread - that's WRONG, IMHO - and makes me wonder about the ability of such posters to take in comments by others, comments that are/were given with FULL compassion - using personal time that was spent to try to help -

I have learned, by being on a forum, unfortunately... that continuing to post when you give sound advice, and then get characterized as 'an extremist,' is not worth it... so, I will not reply 'directly'...

I want to say, though, that...I believe when 'automatically rejecting, defensive, somewhat irrational and/or non-appreciative posts' are made, it discourages other members from reaching out...

Appreciation of ALL posts and NOT characterizing anyone as 'for or against all alternative treatments, based on advice about one treatment' [colloidal silver, and the lack of scientific research about it], would encourage more members to give support...

FYI - I use, and 'believe in,' MANY alternative treatments ...many are not dangerous without scientific suppoort and are worth the exploration - I was never asked me, though, , nor did I say...assumptions were made about me, and others who posted 'in the negative about silver use,' though...

What I feel right now... making extreme assumptions when someone who gives 'compassionate, thoughtful advice' and shares their own experiences (tryptophan, in my case)... makes me wonder if perhaps some are too wound up in blaming docs/Science for their condition, and anyone who defends ANY Science, or the use of science FIRST, when considering something 'potential dangerous,' like colloidal silver, is 'the enemy?'

Again I, SIMPLY said- and others simply said - that putting something like silver into one's body, without proper scientific research is not advisable, IMO, for the reasons I spent time typing about - that's MY 'considered and compassionate' opinion - one can take it or leave it - but, I feel members should

1) say "Thank you!" for the time spent in ALL replies -

and

2) not make 'assumptions about others ' -

3) and, not link members to all of those 'bad docs' held accountable for health problems, just because

(and please recall that I said in my reply to someone... 'unless you are terminally ill,' I don't aadvise it...Under those circumstances, IF Science fails...anything goes, in my book.)

Thanks, ALL, for listening to my sincere and honest reply. These are simply my feelings about a few replies to my post, and about replies to some others' posts - how one chooses to do 'receive replies' matters, ...that's how I feel about it.

It's just too easy for people to not be considerate on Net forums - I think it's important to speak up - so, to others who said things like, "sheesh" etc...this is my saying "sheesh," but with detailed explanation for why...

I do, TRULY, wish ALL members the very best in their health choices. The choices we make are very personal, and I respect that, fully - Gina

[FaithInScienceToo]

Tailz -

Again, you have added things to a post (mine, in this case) that were never said, made assumptions, etc -

No more comments other than - I guess it feels a bit sad to see someone who is as sick as you spend their energies on blaming "Science" and doctors, and in not showing appreciation for those who took the time to reply.

Take care, Gina

[Ursa Major]

Genesis 9, 2-4:

(God speaking to Noah)"And the fear of you and the terror of you shall be on every beast of the earth and on every bird of the sky; with everything that creeps on the ground, and all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that is alive shall be food for you; I give all to you, as I gave the green plant. Only you shall not eat flesh with its life, this is, its blood."

[Ursa Major]

What it means is, that the blood should be drained from an animal before you eat and cook it, as you're not supposed to eat blood. And of course, that is being done with the meat we buy, anyway. I would never eat something called Blutwurst in German (it says its black pudding in my dictionary in English, but I know its something else here in Canada, just can't think of it), as it's made from the blood of pigs. Its a kind of sausage with pieces of fat in it.

Also, it says that you shouldn't eat the meat from animals found dead. Sound advice, because we don't know what killed it, and therefore could get sick from eating it. And that if you have touched an animal found dead, you should bathe and change your clothing. Or if you were hunting and got splattered with blood, same thing. It's no different than saying these days, that you should wash your hands thoroughly with soap and water after touching meat. It's a health precaution, and a sound one at that.

I don't believe that now we should bathe and change clothing after every time we prepare or eat meat.

[Ursa Major]

Butchers will hang up the carcasses to be thoroughly drained of blood before cutting them up to be packaged and sold. We don't have to worry about that, unless we go and butcher our own meat.

[FaithInScienceToo]

Tailz - you are now USING this support forum section in attempts to protheletize -

SO...I am reporting this thread as 'inappropriate' at this point...

And...since you asked -

Regarding your last irrational assumption about me - you wrote to me, "And how can you be so sure that I do not post with compassion for you?"

THAT is a good example of one of your improper assumptions, as I NEVER said ANY such thing...

I said you should have thanked many of us for offering advice when you asked for our time, that you should NOT link us to 'the evil docs' you blame, and that you should NOT make assumptions about what anyone here thinks about 'all alternative medicine,' etc...

Sadly...You continue to treat ANYONE who mentions science in any way, says that not all docs are evil, as anti-you...

... and now...unfortunately...apparently, as anti-God.

Well - now I have only one thing to add:

If you want to promote a religion and quote the bible...the chat room is available.

Gina

[Ursa Major]

Gina, this thread was started by Tailz. She has questions, and thinks she MAY have found an answer, or at least part of an answer. Where is she proselytizing? The American Standard Dictionary defines the word as: "To induce someone to convert to ones own religious faith". Can you please show me where anybody has tried to convert you to Christianity? I can't seem to find that part.

Tailz wasn't sure if eating meat is permissible as a Christian, and what the rules are, if you eat meat. I happened to know where to find the appropriate verses in the bible, to show her that eating meat is not only fine, but we are, as Christians, supposed to eat meat. End of story.

Nobody forced you to come into that conversation and decide to take offence. As far as I am concerned, rather than Tailz proselytizing you, you're the one out of line, attacking her and her faith (and apparently, me as well by association, even though you have decided to not openly attack me in the process).

You saying that everybody should take anything that comes up that has to do with religion to the chatroom is an insult. Are you also saying, that the thread on what to do about communion should have been in the chat section, rather than the one on coping with celiac disease? Is our faith not part of us, and does it not impact how we cope with celiac disease?

[Fiddle-Faddle]

Gina, I am really surprised at the vehemence of your reaction. I am Jewish, and do not feel that Tailz or Ursula are trying to convert me to Christianity. They are discussing some of the Biblical references to food preparation and the laws of Kashrut,some of which deal with the taboos on blood. Interestingly, these are the Jewish dietary laws--as far as I can tell, most Christians have never even heard of them.

Nobody here is proseletyzing; I have not seen Tailz treat you or anybody else as anti-anything.

You usually don't seem to react this way in your posts; what is going on? Are you okay? (Maybe it's the full moon?)

[Rachel--24]

I usually dont get myself involved in these types of "debates" however, I have just read this thread and am thoroughly confused.

Tailz seems quite geniune in her posts and I did not get the feeling that she was prothelitizing at all. I got the feeling that, as Ursula stated, she's trying to get to the bottom of her health problems. I'm leaving the bible out of this but I do happen to agree with alot of what Tailz has pointed out.

Gina, I dont understand where your anger is coming from???

[eKatherine]

Well, Gina, I agree with you wholeheartedly. This thread went the way of "wishful thinking is always better than demonstrable facts" almost at the beginning.

[Fiddle-Faddle]

  eKatherine said:

Well, Gina, I agree with you wholeheartedly. This thread went the way of "wishful thinking is always better than demonstrable facts" almost at the beginning.

I didn't get that impressioni at all, and I just went back to page 1! Tailz is asking questionis and looking at possibilities. She is also (as so many of us have) dealing with doctors who don't believe that she has a problem with gluten.

We have enough trouble with the doctors who think they know everything Can't we wonder about possibilities without having our board-colleagues jumping down throats?

[Rachel--24]

  Fiddle-Faddle said:

I didn't get that impressioni at all, and I just went back to page 1! Tailz is asking questionis and looking at possibilities. She is also (as so many of us have) dealig with doctors who don't believe that she has a problem with gluten.

We have enough trouble with the doctors who think they know everything Can't we wonder about possibilities without having our board-colleagues jumping down throats?

Well said...if some individuals arent in agreement with some alternative methods thats fine....but why criticize those who are trying to think "outside the box" and get answers for themselves?? Many of us havent been helped by traditional medicine...I'm one of those people...they caused me more harm than good. While I'm not qualified to give an opinion on collidial silver one way or the other....I *can* say that I've taken it...a little over a year ago...I didnt notice side effects and I'm surely not turning gray.

[eKatherine]

  Rachel--24 said:

Well said...if some individuals arent in agreement with some alternative methods thats fine....but why criticize those who are trying to think "outside the box" and get answers for themselves?? Many of us havent been helped by traditional medicine...I'm one of those people...they caused me more harm than good. While I'm not qualified to give an opinion on collidial silver one way or the other....I *can* say that I've taken it...a little over a year ago...I didnt notice side effects and I'm surely not turning gray.

There's a point I tried to make repeatedly. It was incompetent doctors who failed you, not "traditional medicine". The answers were there, but the doctors chose not to learn and diagnose properly. Would acupuncture have helped a celiac better than a competent doctor?

The problem is that the experience of one person basically cannot be extrapolated to mean anything. It is only when a great many individuals are followed carefully that we can learn how something is likely to affect people in general.

For instance, I once read a study (of tens of thousands of women) that showed that diabetes is twice as likely to occur in women who had five or more children. A woman I told this to said that this was not true because her mother had had five children and did not become diabetic. Did her experience disprove the study?

Knowing that silver is toxic at predictable amounts (we do know this), it would be unethical for researchers to test it on humans to see at what point different people turn gray.

"Thinking outside the box" can mean a lot of things, but when it means ignoring tested facts - reproducible research - and basing your conclusions on untested or untestable ideas, then the conclusions drawn can be meaningless. I posted a great many articles that addressed questions that kept coming up over and over again. The articles went unread, and the questions continued to be asked. The questions were answered, too, based on sales literature from anonymous internet marketers trying to sell product.

It's a fanciful notion that a person who is untrained in science and opposed to its methods has more to contribute to science than all the scientific establishment combined.

[Rachel--24]

  eKatherine said:

Knowing that silver is toxic at predictable amounts (we do know this), it would be unethical for researchers to test it on humans to see at what point different people turn gray.

Knowing that mercury is toxic at any amount (we do know this), it would be unethical for it to be used in our vaccines and put into our mouths...but they do it anyway. Why, because they *claim* its safe...science proves otherwise but everyone chooses to ignore these facts....yet people are getting all hysterical over silver...which may be toxic but not nearly as toxic as mercury. Where is the logic??

[Fiddle-Faddle]

  eKatherine said:

There's a point I tried to make repeatedly. It was incompetent doctors who failed you, not "traditional medicine". The answers were there, but the doctors chose not to learn and diagnose properly. Would acupuncture have helped a celiac better than a competent doctor?

Traditional medicine espoused 26 mercury-containing vaccines by the age of 18 months. Traditional medicine injected vaccines for hepatitis into my 4 hour-old sons, even though they were at zero risk for hepatitis. This was following the recommendation of the American Academy of Pediatrics (which also recommended the Rotavirus Vaccine). Traditional medicine is now recommending--no, insisting on a mandatory vaccine for 11-year-old girls to prevent the sexually transmitted HPV virus from causing cervical cancer.

Traditional medicine teaches doctors to prescribe drugs and surgery before ever looking for the CAUSE of a problem (as in diet ).

Traditional medicine pits neurosurgeons against chiropractors. I can't tell you how many people with sciatica or carpal tunnel I have run across at physical therapy who have seen neuropsurgeons who recommend surgery and tell them to absolutely NEVER see a chiropractor for their problems (never mind that chiropractors specialize in things like sciatica and carpal tunnel, and can totally fix them in a few visits). I bet Nini could give you more info and better statistics on that.

Traditional medicine has many extremely valuable things to offer, but it is deeply flawed. (And, yes, there are quacks in every branch of medicine, traditional, chiropractic, holistic, naturapathic, accupuncture, whatever.)