4 ms·

Part of the issue is that the practice of medicine predate scientific medicine (which is known as just 'medicine' today). For example, many medicinal herbs used

Part of the issue is that the practice of medicine predate scientific medicine (which is known as just 'medicine' today). For example, many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies.

rodelrod 6y ago
We do the trials.
msla 6y ago
As others have said: We do the trials, and, if something from the pre-scientific era passes muster, we figure out the best way to make it as safe and efficacious as possible with the least variability in effect and fewest side effects. I'm not saying that eating a plant is ineffective, but plants don't come with dosage information for the active ingredient printed on the stem, and knowing how much of the useful (and potentially deadly) substance you're ingesting is important. Vitally important, if you're taking something like digitalis, which comes from foxglove: Get a digitalis dosage far enough wrong and it kills you.
- starfallg 6y ago
  Yeah, but by stigmatising traditional medicine as 'not medicine', the damage has already been done. Lots of people would be turned off a remedy just because it's 'not medicine', even afterward it was proven scientifically. It is medicine, just not scientific medicine. Compare with the issue of getting people to trust in vaccines when the news headlines are all about very rare side effects. Keep in mind that there are traditional treatments that we haven't yet isolated the cause of action or the understand the pharmacology due to it being the interaction of different compounds. I'm not supporting traditional or alternative medicine, but I also don't think that the issue is so black and white, and treating it as such turns people away from the subject entirely.
  - oneplane 6y ago
    The issue is with the devaluation of mudding of words and language. (which might not be the correct wording) I don't think it has to be stigmatising, but I do think that calling things by their specific name helps with everyones mindset. Some words like 'helpful' are fine, because it does wat it says it does. But calling disparate things by the same name leaves the door open for people to mentally align those things to 'be' the same thing, which they aren't. Distinction is important, even if the differentiation isn't black-and-white. Taking some aspirine vs. drinking a nice cup of green tea can both help with a slightly sore throat, but they are not the same thing. (at the same time, I'd argue that it's better to take that nice cup of tea, take a nap, eat healthy, get to bed on time etc instead of covering the symptom with aspirine) Turning people away from a subject in itself isn't a bad thing; if someone is swayed that easily, they should probably not be entering a world of non-repeatable non-measurable non-transferable items and activities, especially if the people involved can't be held responsible for their actions. It also isn't a pharmacology thing on its own. While pharmaceuticals can help with certain issues, it's not the core of medicine and in certain cultures it's mostly just abused to cover up symptoms instead of used to mitigate or resolve root causes. But it's a tricky comparison. In the end we're comparing something measurable with something based on feelings and traditions. Those are generally not that reconcilable.
  - tacc728 6y ago
    “Lots of people would be turned off a remedy just because it's 'not medicine', even afterward it was proven scientifically.” Not sure when that has actually happened? Willow bark to aspirin is a great example of an extremely old “traditional” treatment becoming medicine. Same with quinine for malaria, etc. Tons of real medicines originated by isolating compounds found in nature, even if the final pill form you see is purified or even synthetic. Most people are unaware or just fine with this fact. Sure there are probably many natural treatments out there that are effective (and many that aren’t, or are downright dangerous). We should do the work needed to study them scientifically, and turn the good ones into medicine. Not just promote alternative treatments indiscriminately.
u801e 6y ago
> many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies. If those treatments have been studied in a scientific manner, then the reconciliation, so to speak, has already happened. But, how do we define the effectiveness of treatment? In some cases, using a placebo has shown some effect, but that's because the hypothesis about the effectiveness of a proposed treatment didn't pan out.
- oneplane 6y ago
  To be fair, a placebo can be helpful in its own way. And a 'good' placebo might need to have various methods, tastes, shapes, sizes etc; on the other hand it would be more psychotherapy than what people think of when thinking 'medicine'. Something that 'helps' in a measurable way with no drawbacks is a useful tool to have. It does of course not mend broken bones or suture cuts in the skin.

rodelrod 6y ago

We do the trials.

msla 6y ago

As others have said: We do the trials, and, if something from the pre-scientific era passes muster, we figure out the best way to make it as safe and efficacious as possible with the least variability in effect and fewest side effects. I'm not saying that eating a plant is ineffective, but plants don't come with dosage information for the active ingredient printed on the stem, and knowing how much of the useful (and potentially deadly) substance you're ingesting is important. Vitally important, if you're taking something like digitalis, which comes from foxglove: Get a digitalis dosage far enough wrong and it kills you.

starfallg 6y ago
Yeah, but by stigmatising traditional medicine as 'not medicine', the damage has already been done. Lots of people would be turned off a remedy just because it's 'not medicine', even afterward it was proven scientifically. It is medicine, just not scientific medicine. Compare with the issue of getting people to trust in vaccines when the news headlines are all about very rare side effects. Keep in mind that there are traditional treatments that we haven't yet isolated the cause of action or the understand the pharmacology due to it being the interaction of different compounds. I'm not supporting traditional or alternative medicine, but I also don't think that the issue is so black and white, and treating it as such turns people away from the subject entirely.
- oneplane 6y ago
  The issue is with the devaluation of mudding of words and language. (which might not be the correct wording) I don't think it has to be stigmatising, but I do think that calling things by their specific name helps with everyones mindset. Some words like 'helpful' are fine, because it does wat it says it does. But calling disparate things by the same name leaves the door open for people to mentally align those things to 'be' the same thing, which they aren't. Distinction is important, even if the differentiation isn't black-and-white. Taking some aspirine vs. drinking a nice cup of green tea can both help with a slightly sore throat, but they are not the same thing. (at the same time, I'd argue that it's better to take that nice cup of tea, take a nap, eat healthy, get to bed on time etc instead of covering the symptom with aspirine) Turning people away from a subject in itself isn't a bad thing; if someone is swayed that easily, they should probably not be entering a world of non-repeatable non-measurable non-transferable items and activities, especially if the people involved can't be held responsible for their actions. It also isn't a pharmacology thing on its own. While pharmaceuticals can help with certain issues, it's not the core of medicine and in certain cultures it's mostly just abused to cover up symptoms instead of used to mitigate or resolve root causes. But it's a tricky comparison. In the end we're comparing something measurable with something based on feelings and traditions. Those are generally not that reconcilable.
- tacc728 6y ago
  “Lots of people would be turned off a remedy just because it's 'not medicine', even afterward it was proven scientifically.” Not sure when that has actually happened? Willow bark to aspirin is a great example of an extremely old “traditional” treatment becoming medicine. Same with quinine for malaria, etc. Tons of real medicines originated by isolating compounds found in nature, even if the final pill form you see is purified or even synthetic. Most people are unaware or just fine with this fact. Sure there are probably many natural treatments out there that are effective (and many that aren’t, or are downright dangerous). We should do the work needed to study them scientifically, and turn the good ones into medicine. Not just promote alternative treatments indiscriminately.

u801e 6y ago

> many medicinal herbs used in traditional medicine are effective for a variety of ailments, and some have been proven scientifically. So how do we reconcile that with scientific medicine without stigmatising possibly effective remedies. If those treatments have been studied in a scientific manner, then the reconciliation, so to speak, has already happened. But, how do we define the effectiveness of treatment? In some cases, using a placebo has shown some effect, but that's because the hypothesis about the effectiveness of a proposed treatment didn't pan out.

oneplane 6y ago
To be fair, a placebo can be helpful in its own way. And a 'good' placebo might need to have various methods, tastes, shapes, sizes etc; on the other hand it would be more psychotherapy than what people think of when thinking 'medicine'. Something that 'helps' in a measurable way with no drawbacks is a useful tool to have. It does of course not mend broken bones or suture cuts in the skin.