Alternative medicine

שו”ת › Category: general › Alternative medicine

asked 4 years ago

Good morning, I’m listening to your lessons on mysticism. Last night I heard your opinion on alternative medicine. I understand that your definition is medicine that has been studied and cannot be proven to be effective. Health insurance funds make a different distinction. From my experience, I’ve come across the chiropractic field, which is defined by the health insurance fund as alternative medicine. I don’t know what the level of research is. Personal information: The definition stems from the ego of doctors.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Leave a ReplyCancel reply

0 Answers

0 Vote Up Vote Down

מיכי Staff answered 4 years ago

Until I saw your question, I thought it was just my own opinion. Now I went to Wikipedia, and there, at the beginning of the entry, I found the following gems: The treatments included in alternative medicine are characterized by the fact that they are not backed by scientific research, or even that there is scientific research that refutes their validity . This is because if the effectiveness of a treatment from the world of alternative medicine is confirmed by scientific studies, this treatment is adopted into the mainstream of conventional medicine. In other words, alternative medicine is medicine that is not backed by scientific research and there is no evidence that it works. But according to this, even standing on one leg every morning while humming a bird’s nest among the trees is alternative medicine for lung cancer. It meets all the conditions: it is not backed by scientific research and there is no indication that it works. To score more, in addition to the negative criteria (medicine that does not work and has not been studied), a positive criterion must also be added: a technique that meets the previous conditions, and there are some fools who think that despite everything it does work. This is the full definition of alternative medicine. But now we must look for the fool who believes in standing on one leg while humming the above, and surely someone like that will be found (for example, among opponents of vaccines today, I am sure there are many of them), and everything will return to its place in peace. I am not claiming that the egos of doctors and the interests of companies do not influence medicine. This is true, as in every field. But even if it were true, I see no substitute for research, and as long as there is no systematic research that establishes any technique, even if the reasons for the lack of research are ego and corruption, without research I have no indication that it is true. It may work, but to the same extent it may be that standing on one leg works. There is no substitute for systematic and controlled research, which alternative medicine is wary of like fire. And if by chance it fails and does such research and it succeeds, oh well, the technique has thus passed to conventional medicine, and we are once again left with the collection of usual techniques.

Discover more from הרב מיכאל אברהם

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

מיכי Staff replied 4 years ago

By the way, there is one inaccurate sentence in the passage I quoted. There are certainly techniques in alternative medicine that have been disproven. What is true is that there are no techniques that have been confirmed (since these are considered conventional).

עמנואל replied 4 years ago

Wikipedia's ridiculous definition (which the Rabbi joins in with a snort) is also, of course, an assumption or a straw man. The uniqueness of alternative medicine, in contrast to conventional medicine, is that it is not a cut and drug medicine (the old conventional medicine). It usually also stands on the principles of treating the root and not the symptoms and also takes into account the effect of the mind on the body. Although according to this, not only chiropractic is alternative medicine, but perhaps also physiotherapy. But this is a matter of semantics. Basically, when we talk about conventional medicine, we mean the mentality of technicians and technocrats (who lack the rest of the spirit and vision) who do not see their patient as a person but as a machine like a computer or something like that, and this has negative consequences for the treatment. This is the initial intention in the terminology of alternative medicine. From the collection of medicines in which what was proven was proven (confirmed) and what was not (and what was refuted was refuted) and that's it.
The fact that parts of it have been confirmed and receive a budget from the state and receive official recognition does not change the fact that they are alternative medicine. The reason it is disparaged is because its non-technocratic nature is a fertile ground that attracts charlatans and ”spiritualists” of all kinds. But this has nothing to do with its correctness or not, but only whether it works or not and that's it.

לב replied 4 years ago

Health insurance companies provide alternative treatments because it makes them money.
This does not make alternative medicine something established (all alternative medicine is not research-based, otherwise it would be considered conventional. And a large part of it has been refuted in controlled studies). The claim that conventional medicine does not see the patient as a person or does not try to treat the root cause but only the symptoms is a false and incorrect claim.

עמנואל replied 4 years ago

Lev
You continue with the nonsense that was talked about here. It is just a deception of the public to call alternative medicine that is proven and fooled conventional medicine”. It is not. It just works (if it does work) and that is it. There are two different medical philosophies here. And to call them by the same name just because they both work is at best stupidity (it is like calling different medical procedures by the same name because they are both effective) and at worst fraud.
If something does not work then it does not work and that is it. There is no place for agendas here. You are just as stupid as those various followers of alternative medicine that were put to the test and were not proven.

עמנואל replied 4 years ago

Correction:

Lev
You continue with the nonsense that was talked about here. It is just misleading the public to call alternative medicine that is proven and works “conventional medicine”. It is not. It just works (if it does work) and that is it. There are two different medical philosophies here. And calling them by the same name just because they both work is at best stupid (it is like calling two different medical procedures by the same name because they are both effective) and at worst fraudulent.
If something doesn’t work then it doesn’t work and that is it. There is no place for agendas here. You are just as stupid as those various proponents of alternative medicine that have been put to the test and not proven.

לב replied 4 years ago

Emmanuel, you are wrong (or alternatively you are defining your own unique definitions). Any medical fact that is scientifically proven is considered part of the conventional medical mainstream and is therefore discussed in leading medical journals, taught in medical schools and implemented by qualified doctors. In the accepted definition, what makes something "unconventional" is the lack of a solid evidence base or "facts" that have been scientifically disproven (such as homeopathy, etc.)