I suffer from severe eczema and I have a number of food allergies. After having dealt with allopathic medicine for a decade looking for some effective treatment (which I could find none) I finally turned to a naturopath who was able to help me treat my eczema/allergies, effectively.

Allopathic medicine is fine for surgery and emergencies but I have first hand experience that it is not very effective when it comes to chronic illnesses.

“There is ample evidence that our medical system is a treatment based system not a preventative system.”

OK, I’ll buy that. But again, I feel like we’re having different conversations. I don’t see why that’s a criticism of either my post, or the Newsweek article. What part of the Newsweek article do you see as opposing preventive care? Like I said before, from your post, I was expecting a Newsweek article criticizing exercise, eating right, and other preventative activities. Then I followed the link and found an entirely different article than I had expected.

There is ample evidence that our medical system is a treatment based system not a preventative system That what a lot of health care reform is all about. And I wouldn’t jump so fast to scoff at ideas without emperical evidence (or as often is the case here, simply small evidence or not FDA approved evidence). Question and explore further, yes. Scoff and close our minds, no.

Modern science hasn’t concluded that people are best kept healthy by taking pills. Any halfway decent doctor will tell you that good diet, regular exercise, and good lifestyle are are important in staying healthy, and that your mental health can affect your physical health. But many doctors may be more interested in getting you in and out of their office by prescribing pills. And I’ve certainly had doctors who didn’t like discussing side effects of addictive properties of drugs (I suspect less because of the influence of drug companies than because most doctors I’ve had have hated having their expertise questioned in any way). Modern medicine is run by people, and people have all kinds of flaws.

That doesn’t change the fact that, at it’s core, modern medicine is based on empirical testing of claims, and Oprah’s claims are not. It strikes me as quite reasonable to scoff at claims that don’t have empirical evidence. If Oprah’s going to claim that vaccines cause autism, she should have good scientific evidence for this, or she should be derided. And from your description of the Newsweek article, I would get the impression that Somers was promoting exercise, and good mental health, which would indeed be strange to mock, since there are plenty of scientific studies that show these things promote good physical health. But when I look at the actual article, I see that Somers is promoting rubbing an estrogen cream on her skin, injecting herself with unregulated hormones, and taking a regimen of 60 assorted pills a day. If she doesn’t have empirical evidence that these things are good for you, she should criticized, as not just as a quack, but as a potentially dangerous quack. Encouraging people to inject themselves with chemicals, without any scientific studies about what the effects are, is indeed “crazy talk.”

And yes, as Mike pointed out, there is merit to the placebo effect, our mind and bodies are connected. But I think too often the effects of natural herbs and the like are written off too readily. Food chemicals do affect our bodies. Anyone with a food allergy could tell you that. I’ve even been on synthetic drugs for which I was told to strictly avoid things like grapefruit or foods with vitamin K. These things do affect us. Sure acai might not create a flat belly, but it is full of healthy antioxidents that help our bodies. just because something is natural doesn’t mean it does nothing or is wacky.

More likely than not, they function as a placebo.

That whole “placebo effect” is part of Julie’s point. Our minds and bodies are not separate things. We are wholistic creatures and thus our “minds” do play a role in healing our “bodies”. If that is the case, then why should the “power of positive thinking” (or prayer or placebos) be so derided? Why should bio-chemical solutions be the only ones that are considered “scientific”? If we’ve so reduced the definitions of “science” or “medicine” to exclude any treatments except those that can be sold to us by drug companies, then perhaps we need to reclaim those words and expand their meanings to include an understanding of the whole person, not just our biochemistry.

While they know a lot, they are relying on their limited education and whatever drug programs have been pimped to them. They are obligated to sell the cures from the companies that have wined and dined them, not necessarily seek out what cure might work best for each patient.

That’s upsetting. And certainly not true. Sure, they may be a handful of corrupt doctors, but just about every medical school alerts students to not get swayed by this stuff — and several doctors pledge to never take anything from pharmaceutical companies.

They may not know everything, but a good doctor knows who to contact if their own knowledge is limited. They’re the best hope someone has for getting better. Only hope? I wouldn’t go that far. But I’d much rather put my faith in an educated doctor than the alternative medicine and “holistic” cures that Oprah promotes. Those things have not been tested, and any good they’ve done is purely anecdotal.

More likely than not, they function as a placebo. (And, as an atheist, I say that about prayer, too.) If you want to get better, your body is more receptive to getting better. That’s not a surprise. The problem with this approach is that some people refuse modern medicine because they want to leave their care up to the alternative medicine — with awful results. Even worse is when they submit their children to their beliefs.

Just Google Madeline Neumann and Daniel Hauser if you want examples of that.

Mike – I think you misunderstand my intentions. I was not trying to attack doctors or say they think they know everything. I think patients treat them like they do and that often they don’t have the time or resources to expand their knowledge and treat outside the box. And yes, any parent who refuses to treat their children because they see medicine as a business is hurting their child. But there are a lot of parents who have done their research, understand their children’s health, who do have serious questions about vaccines and other medical stuff. The modern hospital birth is a prime example of taking something natural and turning it into a disease to be treated by overdrugging and clinincalizing everything. Asking questions about why this occurs and what can be done to change it is not a rejection of science, it is a call for sanity and holism. Like I said – I like modern medicine. My kids are vaccinated, I had the super-clinical hospital births, and I literally owe my life to modern medicine (albeit, it wouldn’t have been endangered except for complications due to modern medicine as well…). I am not telling people to distrust their doctor, merely suggesting that they don’t assume the doctor will have all the answers and that they should live in a way that cares for themselves as a whole person, not just as a machine that occassionally needs repair.