Cow Pee In Tackling Cancer

[A chauhan]

What I know is Ayurved works from within strengthning the immune system, only that people doesn't understand it.

 

[Cliff@sea]

@Energon

Sir you cannot blame me for condemning a school of medicine merely because i pointed out that it has it share of drawbacks ,
as you yourself concede , it certainly does .

I admit that the health fraternity has much to be grateful for ,towards western medicine

However you on the other hand are definitely summarily dismissing an established school of alternative medicine as pseudo science and condemning its cures as mere glucose pills .

When the situation is grave , no one would think of avoiding allopathic cures, and certainly not i

But when the problem presents no emergent danger and requires long term healing

i have found Homeopathic medicine to no less efficacious , minus the unpleasant side effects of allopathic drugs.
this is especially true when the diseases are neurological or mental in nature.

Do i have any scientific research to back my contention, ? Unfortunately not .

The sad state of affairs that one witnesses in psychiatric wards , where even rather sentient beings are regularly turned to zombies for life, speaks that Allopathy doesn't have a true cure yet , for many real diseases and merely works towards suppressing the symptoms

I am yet to meet any person with a Psychiatric disorder ever been fully cured by allopathic drugs,
where as examples of people with even mild ailments turning into certified whackjobs are plentiful

OTOH i have seen many such sufferers benefiting greatly from medicine branches such as Homeopathy

That being said , I nevertheless have great respect for allopathy,
its ability to provide immediate cures in situations of grave emergency and its contribution towards saving countless human lives.

 

[LurkerBaba]

Ayurveda can't be clubbed with homeopathy. Its primitive but has beneficial effects.

Homeopathy's foundation OTOH is based on something completely unscientific (Let's not get started on cow pee)

 

[Energon]

@Energon

Sir you cannot blame me for condemning a school of medicine merely because i pointed out that it has it share of drawbacks ,
as you yourself concede , it certainly does .

I admit that the health fraternity has much to be grateful for ,towards western medicine
When the situation is grave , no one would think of avoiding allopathic cures, and certainly not i

Unfortunately sir your latter two opinions contradict the first one. You cannot rely upon something to save your life (literally) in dire need knowing that it is the best option, and then condemn it anyways. Clearly you know that medications with proven therapeutic potential have side effects, yet you use them to save your life when it's needed; why? Because you know that the evidence proving the benefits far outweigh the potential side effects.

But when the problem presents no emergent danger and requires long term healing

i have found Homeopathic medicine to no less efficacious , minus the unpleasant side effects of allopathic drugs.
this is especially true when the diseases are neurological or mental in nature.

If you're trying to make an argument about acute illnesses vs chronic ones, I'm afraid it falls woefully short. Let's consider some of the most common chronic illnesses that plague us: Diabetes and cardiac disease. How do you think evidence based medicine has fared against un scientific alternative practices? It's a blowout. Insulin much like antibiotics has revolutionized the management of type 1 (commonly known as "childhood diabetes") and the type 2 variant seen commonly in adults. Something as simple as asprin has elongated lifespans in many by decades and that's not even touching the wide array of even more sophisticated drugs used to manage serious heart ailments. Both of these were death sentences one upon a time and still continue to be for all those who do not have access to modern medicine.

The sad state of affairs that one witnesses in psychiatric wards , where even rather sentient beings are regularly turned to zombies for life, speaks that Allopathy doesn't have a true cure yet , for many real diseases and merely works towards suppressing the symptoms

I am yet to meet any person with a Psychiatric disorder ever been fully cured by allopathic drugs,
where as examples of people with even mild ailments turning into certified whackjobs are plentiful

Sir, with all due respect, how much do you really know about the science of mental health care? Have you actually analyzed it from a more professional point of view? If not, you really should, it's a fascinating study. Mental health is undoubtedly one of the hardest field's of science to both, study and treat. And the etiologies of many mental diseases still remain a mystery. However if you take objective measure of the quality of mental health delivery of modern medicine vs alternate non scientific practices the latter has absolutely nothing to offer in the management of serious mental ailments. St. John's wort is the most effective agent endorsed by homeopathy, and it helps in extremely mild forms of depression, but beyond that it has shown to be highly ineffective. Drugs most commonly administered to patients suffering from depression that manipulate the neurotransmitter serotonin also have limited effects, yet they are far, far better than any agents homeopathy has to offer.

Do i have any scientific research to back my contention, ? Unfortunately not .

Don't worry, it's not your fault because there are no high quality studies out there with credible data publishable in top tier journals, I know, I've looked. And this is exactly why I refer to it as pseudo science. Because the conclusions are based on shoddy data and anecdotal evidence. The day all the data is subject to scientific reasoning and proven to either be effective or ineffective I will stop referring to it as pseudo science.

I would however like to to address a few conceptual misunderstandings I noticed in your posts which are rather prevalent in India:

1. Allopathic medicine= synthetic pills with side effects vs. homeopathic/ayurvedic = natural, healthy and free of side effects
Wrong on both counts. Allopathic medicine isn't about synthetic pills, it's about using substances proven to have a chemical effect in the most efficient way. Most substances are natural, the pills are merely refined derivatives of a complex substance in order to eliminate all non active or harmful substances . Marijuana for instance is prescribed for pain control and nausea; clearly this is about as "natural" and "green" as it gets. Leech saliva is used to control inflammation and venom from snakes and scorpions can be used for numerous other purposes. However these things are refined to keep the beneficial and remove the harmful in order to exact the best effect. Also active chemical agents aren't devoid of side effects simply because they are "natural" as touted by naturopathy. You will be surprised how many homeopathic and ayurvedic agents can lead to things like bleeding problems that could endanger a patient during something as simple as a dental cleaning. Psylocibin (magic mushrooms) are natural, but boy is there a side effect, its effects are not really that different from LSD (a purely synthetic substance).

2. Allopathic philosophy of synthetic drugs is Western and an equivalent of naturalistic Eastern philosophies like Ayurveda. (Homeopathy is actually German and not Eastern).
Evidence based medicine isn't a system which produces synthetic drugs instead of using (supposedly inert) natural ones. It merely dictates how conclusions are reached. Agents could be natural or synthetic, the question is what exactly do they do and how to evaluate that evidence? Allopaths prescribe yoga and other certain forms of exercise, not because they're synthetic but because they show evidence of benefit. Heck even the pacebo effect is used to help patients because that too shows hard evidence of benefit.

3. Allopaths have not found the "cure" to many ailments and merely try and suppress conditions and hence it's better to go for naturopathy.
This is true, we haven't found cures to many diseases such as diabetes, hypertension, AIDS or complex viral pathologies. However if you mean to infer that Ayurveda or homeopathy has, then you are sadly mistaken. Not only do ayurveda and homeopathy fail to provide a cure, but they don't even have an equitable understanding of how most disease pathways work. Organ transplant patients for instance spend the rest of their lives suppressing their immune system but if they were to rely upon naturopathy they wouldn't have "the rest of their life" to begin with.

Most of these discussions end with the feeling that the "westerner" is looking down upon the "easterner", and the arrogant westerner thinks he is right. This isn't true. I have no doubt that there are some things used by homeopaths that are beneficial, and I'll gladly endorse these things once they are found, but first they must be subject to scientific reasoning so that we can see if and how well they work. Also, even if something is proven to not work, it isn't any less valuable information. There is no shame in a negative finding, it helps eliminate false options. It is not a question of who's drugs are better, rather it's about what exactly works. Also this widespread need to believe that an ancient sage with a long beard sitting under a tree found a solution to a problem a long time ago is highly misguided. The driving force of medicine needs to be the future, not the past.

I also have no problems with patients pursuing unscientific medical "cures" if it makes them feel better, only with two exceptions: 1) It does not interfere with evidence based therapy and 2) It does not delay early intervention. Sadly both of these are big problems in India and lead to much morbidity and mortality.