Alternative Medical Science

[Guest truespirit]

Hey guys! Thanks for taking the time to read my question this morning.

Might any of you be able to offer me your opinions relating to medical science?

First and foremost, I am not talking about stem cell research or anything like that, etc-None of those areas we know to be bad.

However, when it comes to the basics of the science of medical research, in and of itself, does anybody believe here that today's medical researchers might be doing anything that would ever go against the Bible's teachings?

Several families would love to find cures for conditions like diabetes, autoimmune disease, heart disease, etc. Yet, there is at least one Biblical passage I'm aware of that seems to suggest that human suffering is something that God appreciates in certain cases (Is my interpretation correct there?).

If that's the case, is it really our place to be conducting medical research? What if it's in God's plan for this or that person to be afflicted with this or that medical condition, etc?

In other words, if the goal of medical research is to offer a cure for those with disease, is that a cure at all? Really? Or are we actually going against the will of God in these types of circumstances?

What about the society as a whole? 75% of adults take a multi vitamin, many others take various supplements, herbs, etc. Is that ok to do, or could these habbits signal a weakness of faith in the eyes of God?

Jesus healed, Jesus cured those with illness, but only He could do so the way He did. There's a big difference between the miracles that Jesus performed and the types of cures that medical researchers are after.

This might sound like a crazy question to ask, but I think that most of you understand what I'm talking about here.

I would really enjoy your feedback. Thanks to all for your help. God Bless.

Edited January 30, 2006 by truespirit

[Bread_of_Life]

(a) Christian means Christ-like. Jesus helped the sick and infirm. So should we.

(b) I lock my car. It doesn't mean I don't trust God to look after me and my property - it means that he expects me to take reasonable precautions also. People who take vitamins and practice preventative medicine are doing something which science has clearly shown help their bodies stay in good condition. The body is the temple of the spirit, and a gift from God, we ought to take all reasonable precautions to look after it.

That was easy.

[Guest LadyC]

i have a bit to say regarding use of vitamins and herbal supplements.

when God created this world, and when scripture was written, the foods people ate were not loaded with chemicals, steroid enhancements, coated with pesticides, depleted of vital nutrients, etc. in our world today, most people eat processed foods, fast foods, foods that have been fried, foods that have lost their nutritional value, traded in for the on-demand convenience.

supplements are actually necessary to RESTORE what God originally intended us to be putting in our bodies.. so unless you're eating strictly organic foods (from beef and poultry to dairy products to whole grains and fruits and veggies), you pretty much need to replace what is being stolen from your body.

herbal supplements as medicine are also useful. most of our chemically based, man-made medicines are either derived from natural plants OR are synthetic reproductions. and since man-made medicines of this nature have only been in existence for a couple of hundred years, one could say that the pharmaceutical industry is actually what is 'alternative".

next time you have a headache, try some white willow bark. that's what aspirin is made from. digitalis, used for heart patients (i think) is actually a plant based drug. atropine is a plant based drug... atropa belladonna.

[Gerioke]

Remember too, Luke was a physician by trade, and apparently continued to practice what he knew of medicine long after the resurrection.

Fact is, much of what he and other physicians of the time "knew" of medicine has been proven wrong since then, but there is no mention in the Bible of anyone rebuking a physician for trying to cure someone with natural herbs and commons sense treatments.

Here are all the occurences of the term in the Bible.

Jeremiah 8:22

Is there no balm in Gilead; is there no physician there? why then is not the health of the daughter of my people recovered?

"Balm" refers to a blend of herbs and oils that is put on a wound to fight infection and promote healing. So herbal medicine is not discouraged by the Bible, and indeed God used it as an example in this passage.

Matthew 9:12

But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

Mark 2:17

When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

Luke 4:23

And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

Luke 5:31

And Jesus answering said unto them, They that are whole need not a physician; but they that are sick.

Colossians 4:14

Luke, the beloved physician, and Demas, greet you.

Scripture even records that Rachel ate mandrakes because they believed they increased a woman's fertility. There is no evidence that she was rebuked for this, or that the Lord was displeased with her, in fact, soon after she did in fact concieve. This is not to say that the mandrakes helped her, but there is no evidence that the Lord punished her for trying a "natural cure" for her infertility.

Doctors will not prescribe natural medicines because the pharmaceutical companies would get mad at them and stop paying them off.

[Guest LadyC]

yes, luke was a "physician" by trade. but by today's standards, physicians of those times would more closely resemble naturopaths, because ALL medicines back then were natural. the use of herbs, as well as reflexology, and other methods of diagnosing and treating illnesses were what physicians practiced at that point in history.

[Guest truespirit]

Ok great, thanks for your help, guys. I think like you do about this. I guess I just wanted to be sure.

I have one more question for you, if you don't mind.

For those of you that know something about alternative medicine, some of you have probably heard about the benefits of herbs such as Olive Leaf Extract, Grapeseed Extract (Fairly close in structure to Red Wine Extract), Omega 3 supplements, Cinnamon and Aloe Vera. Of the various herbal formulas out there, these that I've mentioned tend to be well researched and pretty effective in certain cases, as many of us have probably read. Coincidentally, many of these are either eluded to directly in the Bible, or compare signifigantly to different areas.

Perhaps the strangest part of this is that the majority of the supplements that I've mentioned here target yeast/fungal infections. We know that now with today's research.

Two thirds of those with HIV develop Candidiasis at some point during their illness (Yeast/fungal infection). Many now alledge that fungi/yeast play a role with cancer, though there are several different "Formulas" of consideration that come with these opinions (Some alledge that certain cancers are nothing more than fungal infections, others alledge that the fungal infections common to these types of conditions are the result of weakened immunity, etc).

You probably see what I'm getting at here-Is it wrong for a Christian to look at anything like that as "A sign"? I think you probably know what I mean here. I want to be very careful here because faith is faith. That's how you come to God, you can't get there by "Proving things." I've learned that lesson.

I would be interested in any type of comments you might have about something like this.

Thanks so much to all of you. God Bless.

Edited January 30, 2006 by truespirit

[ayin jade]

Doctors will not prescribe natural medicines because the pharmaceutical companies would get mad at them and stop paying them off.

That is nonsense Gerioke. Doctors will not prescribe many of the so called natural products because they have not been proven to be effective. The particular act of congress that allowed them to be sold as much as they do is only because of business reasons. They are not required at all to prove they have a benefit, like real pharmaceuticals must prove. They do not have to prove they have no risks or side effects, as real medicine must prove. They dont even have FDA regulation as real medicine must have. So in essense, these so called natural medicines are allowed to make whatever claim they wish to, without any oversight by anyone. There were some studies done independently that have shown that many of the claims of the so called natural products isnt even valid. For example, a pill that contains an extract of a certain plant has been shown to be devoid of that extract and consist of nothing more than sugar. Yet that cant be taken off the market since there is no oversight by any agency. And you wonder why physicians dont prescribe these more often?

[CellShade]

There is nothing wrong against alternative medicine, what type of alternative medicine is wrong though is medicine like acupunture and that type of stuff.

[Gerioke]

Doctors will not prescribe natural medicines because the pharmaceutical companies would get mad at them and stop paying them off.

That is nonsense Gerioke. Doctors will not prescribe many of the so called natural products because they have not been proven to be effective. The particular act of congress that allowed them to be sold as much as they do is only because of business reasons. They are not required at all to prove they have a benefit, like real pharmaceuticals must prove. They do not have to prove they have no risks or side effects, as real medicine must prove. They dont even have FDA regulation as real medicine must have. So in essense, these so called natural medicines are allowed to make whatever claim they wish to, without any oversight by anyone. There were some studies done independently that have shown that many of the claims of the so called natural products isnt even valid. For example, a pill that contains an extract of a certain plant has been shown to be devoid of that extract and consist of nothing more than sugar. Yet that cant be taken off the market since there is no oversight by any agency. And you wonder why physicians dont prescribe these more often?

So you are saying that doctors do not recieve kickbacks for administering pharmaceuticals?

Drug Companies Influence Government and Doctors With Big Money... Perks, Payola and Prejudice Prevail.

"Pharmaceutical companies are against medical marijuana reform due to potential billions in lost revenue from their sales of synthetic derivatives."

"Drug companies spend far more to influence doctors than on research and development, or even on advertising to consumers", the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation found in their recent 2002 survey.

Promoting Drugs

CBC News Story excerpts

by Erica Johnson

It's no secret Canada's pharmaceutical companies are lobbying hard to get the products they manufacture covered by provincial health plans.

They spend almost a billion dollars a year, trying to influence governments and doctors. Now, drug companies are trying a new strategy - targeting patients. And they're working through a network of organizations more trusted than themselves.

Among these patients' groups is The Cancer Advocacy Coalition. Almost all of our money to date has come from pharmaceutical companies in Canada," Pat Kelly, one of the founders of the group told Marketplace.

The Coalition is not alone. These days almost every high profile disease advocacy group relies on the financial backing of the drug industry. That has some people worried these groups may be influenced by the corporate interests that pay their bills.

It simply wants to influence public - and government - opinion.

Of 100 new drugs brought to market in Canada every year, about five are true therapeutic breakthroughs, according to Rick Hudson of BC's ministry of health. Paying for every drug the government is pressured to, he says, would take half a billion dollars from other healthcare areas.

Doctors Take Big Perks from Pharmaceutical Giants

Just Say No

Source: CTV News Staff

Montego Bay, Jamaica is a tropical paradise and the perfect getaway. You can windsurf, golf or just relax on gorgeous white sand beaches along the Caribbean Sea and for some, the price is right.

For many of the Canadian doctors enjoying this particular trip, it's free and paid for by international drug giant, Boehringer Ingelheim.

Dozens of doctors, specialists and their spouses are staying at the luxurious and world-renowned vacation spot, the Half Moon Resort. There, the rooms start at more than $600 a night.

"It's upsetting, you know. It's very disappointing," says Canadian cardiologist, Dr. P.J. Devereaux.

He says drug companies are constantly offering doctors incentives to learn about their drugs.

"It is an enormous amount of money that the industry puts out in trying to actually offer promotions to physicians to hopefully influence their practice."

According to the invitations to Jamaica, obtained by W-FIVE, Boehringer Ingelheim offered to pay for the flights of doctors along with their spouses, accommodations and several meals. All the doctors had to do in return was to attend some seminars about arthritis drugs and the benefits of their product.

The president of the Canadian Medical Association, Dr. Henry Haddad, says it's wrong for doctors to accept gifts, because a gift implies obligation.

"Your dealings with the pharmaceutical industry must not come between you and your patient and we feel that accepting gifts, accepting trips, whatever order is wrong," says Dr. Haddad.

Some research has also shown that doctors are influenced by drug marketing techniques.

"There's good evidence to show that it influences physicians at the level of knowledge, at the level of their attitudes and at the level of practice," says Canadian researcher, Ashley Wazana.

Wazana published a study in the Journal of American Medical Association and concluded that with increased interaction with the pharmaceutical industry, doctors prescribed unnecessary drugs, drugs with more side effects and more expensive drugs.

THE COST OF DRUG MARKETING TO HEALTH CARE

The cost of drugs in Canada is soaring. Last year alone, drugs cost the health care system more than $15-billion. Only hospitals cost more than that amount. Some critics argue that a big part of what's driving up drug costs is the lavish marketing to doctors, such as the trip to Jamaica.

A return business class ticket on that flight to Jamaica costs $1,700. Three nights in the resort's least expensive rooms are another $1,900. The bill is $3,600 before you add in any meals, drinks or extras. Remember, that's for only one doctor.

Dr. Devereaux insists that every time a doctor accepts an invitation to a drug company event, it's taxpayers and patients who end up paying in the end.

"No one would go into Mrs. Jones' room and say, 'Mrs. Jones, would you mind paying for my lunch?' But in a way that's in fact what we are doing... It all comes back to higher drug costs. There's only one way to recuperate the money."

Drug company marketing is big business. Industry critics estimate it costs as much as a billion dollars a year in Canada, some of which is spent directly on doctors.

"It happens. It's ubiquitous, happening globally and it's happening all the time," says Dr. Devereaux.

W-FIVE wanted to speak with some of the doctors who attended the drug company event in Jamaica.

It's not known how many, if any of the doctors, decided to pay their own way. Few of the doctors returned W-FIVE's calls and among those who did, even fewer were willing to speak about the trip.

Finally one doctor was willing to be interviewed. Dr. Wally Pruzanski is a rheumatologist and lives in the upscale neighbourhood of Forest Hill in Toronto. The drug company paid for his trip to Jamaica.

Dr. Pruzanski says he's been on about five or six trips paid for by the drug companies and he went to Jamaica to get up-to-date information about a particular drug.

"You have to understand that when we leave Toronto, and when we accept this kind of invitation, we are losing part of our practice. So we are sacrificing part of our income, in order to educate ourselves."

He also says he in no way feels an obligation to the drug company.

Even CMA president Dr. Haddad says the offers can be pretty enticing, admitting that he once accepted a trip to Ireland from a drug company. It's a decision he now regrets.

"I tell you honestly, I felt bad. When I came home, I told my wife I shouldn't have done that... I didn't feel comfortable being wined and dined by the industry."

But what is there to stop doctors from taking drug company perks? Absolutely nothing.

Dr. Haddad says he's not aware of any doctor being sanctioned in any way for accepting gifts from a drug company.

"The CMA is not a police. CMA has no role in enforcement. We can't sanction physicians."

ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM

In Houston, Texas, more than 1,000 medical students are attending an American Medical Students' Association conference.

This year, one of the main topics of discussion is the relationship of doctors with drug companies and the ethics of doctors accepting freebies.

"We want physicians to stop accepting gifts, all gifts regardless of size... Certainly some of the bigger ticket items, like the lunches and dinners and the weekends away and the trips to the golf course, golf outings, tennis outings and so forth like that," says Dr. Bob Goodman.

No free lunch has become a catchphrase for those who believe doctors should refuse drug company offers. The movement is due in large part to Dr. Goodman and his organization, called 'No Free Lunch.'

"Our motto is, 'Just say no to drug reps'."

As a specialist in internal medicine at Columbia Presbyterian Hospital in New York City and teacher, Dr. Goodman instructs medical residents how to best treat their patients.

Three years ago, Dr. Goodman decided to take a page from the drug companies' book. He created a line of his own paraphernalia with the brand name, 'No Free Lunch.'

"I created these mugs and pens and T-shirts as a sort of a bake sale to raise money to buy drugs for patients, that was the initial impetus. At the same time, I started the website and then the organization grew into something else."

What it grew into was a site for doctors to take a pledge vowing to abstain from drug company perks.

"I am committed to practicing medicine in the best interest of my patients and on the basis of the best available evidence, rather than on the basis of advertising or promotion. I therefore pledge to accept no money, gifts, or hospitality from the pharmaceutical industry; to seek unbiased sources of information and not rely on information disseminated by drug companies; and to avoid conflicts of interest in my practice, teaching, and/or research."

Dr. Goodman considers this almost an addendum to the Hippocratic Oath.

"They've sworn to Apollo to do what's best for the patient and this is one thing that will help them do what's best for the patient, rather than what's best for the industry."

Dr. Goodman feels that he's tapped into a receptive group of medical professionals.

"Students for example, who haven't been socialized yet and aren't busy accepting these gifts, can easily see that this kind of thing is wrong and are much easier to convince. And, in fact, I think students are really the answer to this problem."

But what about the drug companies? Well, there are rules about their dealings with doctors. The industry's code states that educational sessions must be the main focus of social events. Drug companies can't offer any free entertainment and trips like the one to Jamaica are strictly forbidden.

In recent years, drug companies have been sanctioned for paying for doctors to attend a number of different events, including everything from a night at the Winnipeg ballet, to an NHL game in Edmonton, an NBA game in Toronto, to free golf and free skiing.

During the course of its investigation, W-FIVE accumulated drug company invitations sent to doctors, such as invitations to fancy dinners at four-star restaurants, a trip to the Bahamas, a private box to an NBA game, and a dinner theatre in Mississauga, Ontario.

W-FIVE presented these invitations to the industry's self-regulating body, called Rx&D, to find out how appropriate they are. Lee Marks is in charge of reviewing complaints.

"The decisions on these kinds of situations are always those of the marketing practices review committee. I do not have the jurisdiction or the authority to rule on them." says Marks.

Boehringer Ingelheim, the company that sponsored the trip to Jamaica, declined W-FIVE's request for an interview, but did send a fax admitting they were wrong to offer the trip.

It states that Rx&D had contacted the company and the event in Jamaica had contravened the industry's code of marketing conduct. Boehringer Ingelheim states that they "accept the ruling" and have "taken steps to ensure that no such breaches occur in the future."

The penalty for the first breach is a fine of $1,000 and the infraction is cited in Rx&D's industry publication, Contact.

But in addition to the trip to Jamaica, W-FIVE has learned Boehringer Ingelheim was sanctioned two other times in the past 12 months for other unrelated matters.

The maximum penalty for repeat offenders is $15,000 and their infractions are published in Rx&D's publication.

"Much more importantly than the financial penalties are the reports of the misadventures of companies. That is the true penalty because no responsible company wants to see its name and details about inappropriate behaviour on the part of its personnel published in a national paper," says Marks.

However, the publication has a limited readership of only 3,000 people, mostly in the industry.

For repeat offenders, the board of directors does have the option to take whatever action they deem is necessary. However, the board has never expelled a company because of infractions to the code.

It is no doubt comforting news to companies, like industry giant Boehringer Ingelheim and to any doctors who want to take them up on their generous offers.

[Guest LadyC]

Ayin, you're partially correct, and partially not correct. many doctors are more and more studying herbology and recommending herbs. however, the big problem here hinges, like you said, on the fact that they aren't regulated by the FDA.

the herbs are effective, in and of themselves. but without any regulation, there is no quality assurance. and so you have companies that may put so little of the actual herb in the capsule that it's useless... or you may have companies that are marketing the herbs for things which they shouldn't be marketed for... for instance, an herb that is primarily effective for a specific condition but yet which also has shown occasional success treating a more common and widespread problem in our society may get marketed for the secondary problem because it will garner more sales, even though the significance of it's ability to treat that problem is so nominal that it may or may not have any medical or scientific relevance.

some things to consider:

if you know what you're doing and are willing to really STUDY their uses... one of the good things is that they have been used since the beginning of creation, and pharmaceuticals have only existed for about the last 150 years or so... and new drugs are being put on the market daily.

another benefit is that they tend to be MORE effective and work more quickly if used properly. unfortunately the study of herbs for medicinal purposes is a pretty much lost art anymore. a wise bet would be to use the raw herbs in teas, or in tincture formula, rather than in capsules.

pharmaceuticals tend to be pushed through by the FDA long before they should be.... as a result, many drugs get pulled from the market after side effects prove to be very harmful.

another problem with pharmaceuticals is that they often treat the symptoms rather than the cause, which leads to people (particularly elderly people) having to take more and more prescriptions to counteract the side effects caused by their other prescriptions.

i could go on and on... but the bottom line is, a little knowledge (about herbs) can also be extremely dangerous. like drugs, herbs interact with other herbs in ways that may be harmful, and few people are trained at knowing how those interractions occur and what the effects can be on the person using them. also, people tend to not know HOW herbs work, and that in itself can be dangerous.

example: i used to use an echinacea-blend tincture to treat many things, including strep throat, very successfully. i had no idea how it worked, i just knew that it worked far faster at healing me, and my daughters who were very young at the time, than antibiotics... and without the undesirable side affects of antibiotics, including yeast infections, which are very common with antibioitic use. when my oldest, then 8 years old, came down with mono, i used the tincture alongside of antibiotics to treat her... i had studied herbs on my own, and had planned to become a licensed naturopathist through an accredited school as soon as i could afford to. but i had never learned how echinacea worked... it works by raising the white blood cell count. well, mono raises your white blood cells to very high levels as it is... and when i gave her the tincture, it increased them to VERY dangerous levels. as a result, my ignorance could have killed my daughter. luckily i took her off the tincture and her white cell count came back within a safe range within a day or so.

in an ideal world, physicians today would be required to study herbs as much as they study drugs, so they could effectively treat people in the best way possible.