Natural Health Care: the Research Evidence

acupuncture

Politics Masquerading as Science

(This is the 1st of four posts on the effectiveness of “natural” or “alternative” health care.)

I find it ironic how eager mainstream doctors are to condemn natural health treatments for not being “evidence-based.” Especially when Western medicine can produce little or no scientific evidence regarding the long term effectiveness and safety of many of their treatments. This is particularly true of heart surgery and immunization protocols. We operate on hearts and vaccinate kids for reasons that have nothing to do with scientific evidence. At the same time, we hold “natural” or “alternative” health providers to a much higher standard of proof. This is for complex political reasons that have given organized medicine and Big Pharma a virtual monopoly over health and healing. It has nothing to do with science.

The Myth of Evidence-Based Medicine

Doctors seem to forget that most common Western remedies were incorporated into the medical armamentarium centuries ago without any “proof” whatsoever of their effectiveness or safety. There were no randomized controlled trials when doctors began using digitalis for heart failure, morphine for pain, or sudafed for nasal congestion. All, like many other drugs, are plant-based treatments* originally used by midwives and herbalists (women the Catholic Church condemned as “witches”).

It was only when pharmaceutical companies began to develop synthetics substitutes that drugs were subjected to randomized control trials. Likewise, the long term outcome of many surgical interventions is never studied before they are rushed into the marketplace. A recent Wall Street Journal article examines the cost effectiveness of two common cardiac procedures – coronary angioplasty and coronary bypass surgery.

According to the article, in 2006 American surgeons performed 1.3 million coronary angioplasties at an average cost of $48,399 each – at a total cost of more than $60 billion. The same year they performed 448,000 coronary bypass operations at a cost of $99,743 each – at a total of more than $44 billion.

Despite these costs, a randomized controlled trial published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that angioplasties and stents don’t prolong life or even prevent heart attacks in stable patients (i.e. 95% of patients who receive them). Likewise coronary bypass surgery prolongs life in less than 3% of cases.

The Bias Against Natural Health Care

The authors ask:  Why do Medicare and health insurance companies pay billions of dollars for dangerous, expensive, and largely ineffective heart surgeries – yet balk at paying for “natural” approaches that have proven to reverse and prevent the chronic diseases that account for at least 75% of health care costs (INTERHEART study, The Lancet, Sept 2004)?

Good question.

*Below are just a few common medicines based on ancient plant-based treatments:

  • Aspirin
  • Atropine
  • Curare
  • Theobromine
  • Taxo
  • Scopolamine
  • Reserpine
  • Quinjidine
  • Quinine
  • Papavarine
  • Physostigmine
  • Papain
  • L-dopa
  • Hyoscyamine

(To be continued.)

 

photo credit: SuperFantastic via photopin cc

2 thoughts on “Natural Health Care: the Research Evidence

  1. No evidence for the effectiveness of vaccines? This is just straight out incorrect information. And alternative medicine is held to a much lower standard needing only to show it is not harmless – no trials to show its efficacy unlike real medicine. Randomised controlled trials are the very reason we live longer and can be treated for diseases that would have killed us early and killed most of our children. You are peddling misinformation that is dangerous to people’s health. I would stay subscribed just to fight you every stop of the way for peddling such nonsense, but unfortunately it would take up too much of my life if you think there is no evidence for the effectiveness of vaccines. I just ask that you read some real research. Goodbye.

    Like

  2. Debra, I think the confusion here is the distinction between the short term benefits (5-10 years) of vaccines, which are studied prior to the vaccine being approved, and the LONG TERM effect on the overall health of the individual. Vaccine manufacturers are only obliged to study the short term effectiveness of vaccines before they are patented and approved for public use. Because they operate based on short term profit motive, they have no incentive to study the long term effect of vaccines over a person’s lifetime. The limited research done into the long term effect of certain immunizations suggests that individuals with a variety of digestive disorders suffer impairment in their natural immunity as a direct result of being vaccinated.

    Also I think if you examine the epidemiological research, I think you will find that the main reasons for increased life expectancy stem from improved nutrition and sanitation-related public health measures – not medical intervention.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.