GameBanshee Forums

@fable:One of the defining ways to view various systems of medicine is relative to the manner they regard the vis medicatrix naturae -- literally the healing power of nature or the body's inherent ability to heal itself -- since the aims and limitations of any therapeutic system is defined by that position. Conventional western medicine, coming out of the Solidist tradition of the early 1800's, is based on the reductionistic, dualistic, and mechanistic explanatory strategy advanced by Descartes and Newton. As such, it believes that the physician, not the body's inherent healing ability, cures disease and that the vis medicatrix naturae is little more than a superstition (despite the fact that the so-called placebo response is so potent that no major drug can be released until it is tested against it). Naturopathic medicine, takes the opposite view: that the vis medicatrix naturae is an intelligent dynamic that is an emergent property of the ecology of the human system. As such, the physician is tasked with working in dominion with, not domination over, this aspect of the mind-body continuum. This position was recently given philosophical structure, and is in accord with, the interactionalistic, indeterministic, and nonlinear explanatory strategy advanced by Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm, and, to a lesser degree, Einstein. Pragmatically, naturopathic physicians work to restore health in a life-style intensive, low-level invasive fashion, using botanicals, diet, physical medicine, counseling, homeopathy, etc. So yes, we do prefer natural (defined as being an accordance with the body's ecological/genetic heritage) to petrochemicals and removing body parts, but I have and will prescribe appropriate agents such as antibiotics where indicated. Now, aren't you glad you asked?

As to the tantra, I understand that Waverly has some videotapes, at a reasonable price, that might change your wife's mind.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: thantor3 ]

Originally posted by thantor3:
<STRONG>@ Mr. Sleep: You have an elegant way with words. A practioner of the art yourself, no doubt. </STRONG>

I heard that someone went for (i think) 12 hours, whats your longest?

Originally posted by Mr Sleep:
I heard that someone went for (i think) 12 hours

Really. How long after that did they wake him from his dream? Gee, nowadays I'm happy when a session goes for an hour or so. Sigh.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: thantor3 ]

Originally posted by Yshania:
<STRONG>Name: Still Yshania (!)

Sex: female

Current global positioning: London, UK

Appearance: 5'4, 8 stone 13lbs (about 50 summat kilos) long naturally curly (pain in the bum!) reddish/blondish/ok mousy hair, grey/blue eyes

Age: 32

Alignment: According to the test - neutral good, according to tendencies - chaotic evil...

Astrological sign: Taurus, with moon in Scorpio and rising sign is cusp Scorpio/Saggitarius.

Relationship status: Married, two little angels (!), pets = a tank full of carp that take your hand of at feeding time, and two HUGE tom cats (19lb each in weight) that lurk at fish feeding time!

Occupation: Accounts manager (aaarrrggghhh numbers and balancing stuff!) and mum/houswife

Likes: In no particular order, the sound of my kids laughing, RPG games, motorbikes, football (soccer), reading, beer, live music, spending time with friends and family, spending time alone...

Dislikes: My kids crying/whining, UK pub closing times and petrol prices

[ 07-08-2001: Message edited by: Yshania ]</STRONG>

I'm in love

Thantor3 writes:
Now, aren't you glad you asked?

Yes--don't see why I wouldn't be! It makes good sense, though I suspect Heisenberg would merely stare at your remark concerning him, while Bohr would curse a blue streak.

Alas, knowing my wife, she would laugh at any videos like that, or raise an eyebrow and give me her patented "you've got to be kidding" look. (And yes, I know you're joking, in part; but tantra videos do exist.) She just doesn't get into the spirit of ritual, I'm afraid, even when the benefits are so obvious.

[ 07-09-2001: Message edited by: fable ]

Thantor wrote:

Really. How long after that did they wake him from his dream? Gee, nowadays I'm happy when a session goes for an hour or so. Sigh.

In accordance with non-invasive naturopathic principles I prescribe, "more play, less work."

@Grunt, LMAO!

I forgot to mention the alopecia, halitosis, false teeth and humped back...

Oh, and my tendency to drift in and out of reality and discuss my travels with myself.

My consultant prescribed this pc for occupational therapy so I may meet like minded people

<<popping another pill>>

Originally posted by thantor3:
<STRONG>Conventional western medicine, coming out of the Solidist tradition of the early 1800's, is based on the reductionistic, dualistic, and mechanistic explanatory strategy advanced by Descartes and Newton. </STRONG>

Thantor, with all respect to all your knowledge in the are of alternative medicine, I don't think you give a nuanced and updated picture of traditional medicine here. I you care to discuss this with me, I would very much like you to explain what you mean by "reductionistic" and "dualistic". I am well versed in both philosophy and science theory, and I don't think the terms you use are apt for academic medicine of today. It sound to me like you are describing the medicine of the 1950's.

<STRONG>This position was recently given philosophical structure, and is in accord with, the interactionalistic, indeterministic, and nonlinear explanatory strategy advanced by Bohr, Heisenberg, Bohm, and, to a lesser degree, Einstein. Pragmatically, naturopathic physicians work to restore health in a life-style intensive, low-level invasive fashion, using botanicals, diet, physical medicine, counseling, homeopathy, etc. So yes, we do prefer natural (defined as being an accordance with the body's ecological/genetic heritage) to petrochemicals and removing body parts
</STRONG>

Why are you viewing non linear, interactive and multifactorial theory constructs as connected to alternative medicine and not to traditional/academic medicine? Of course the views are different, but I certainly don't agree they are opposites in all aspects. You sound hostile towards academic medicine?

Also, I'd like to tell you that the mechanism by which many natural medicines work in the body, are the same as how synthetic substances work. That something occurs in nature (ie a plant) does not mean it's necessarily better in the sense that it's more efficient curing the problem or giving less side effects. A good example is the Johannes plant, I don't know the English name, but I'll check if you like. This plant is very popular in all of the Western world, because it has an antidepressive effect. It works by affecting the serotonin system, just like Prozac does. One very bad side effect though: something is this plant breaks down the immune system. So people with HIV using this, develops AIDS almost instantly even if they are on medication. (This tragic discovery was made in Sweden last year.) So, what I want to say with this story is that natural products are not always better because they are natural. A synthetic product can sometimes be cleaner and induce less side effects.

Originally posted by Yshania:
<STRONG><<popping another pill>> </STRONG>

I see you have been prescribed these pills aswell

On a more serious note, regarding the discussion on modern medicine versus the body's natural ability to fight disease and how modern medicines have been improved since the 1950s...

Long story...

Back in the 1950s my mum contracted TB, as did her father. Both were in isolation for over a year, and prescribed medication that could only suppress the illness until the body's own defence mechanisms could kick in and fight the disease.

Later in life (five years ago), but still at a young age, my mum developed eusophagal (sp?) cancer. She was given 18mnths without surgery, or possibly five years plus after surgery. It was a major operation which involved two huge cuts and collapsing a lung for access. The surgeons were surprised at the success of the op but within the week she developed a lung infection they could not diagnose. She was put on a variety of antibiotics, in different combinations but then the illness infected her blood, got mobile, then one by one her organs failed. The cause of death was put down as pneumonia, even though her consultant had doubts.

Two years later I was diagnosed with active TB myself and started questioning her diagnosis. I was six weeks pregnant when my mum died (and was possibly infectious), my defences were low as I was a bit run down, already having a 18 month old toddler and a full time job.

I went to a GP with chest pain in the November and was told it was probably an injury and to take pain killers. I went back in the January with the same problem and was told it was probably that the injury had not had time to heal (the chest pain was not constant or even often but it was like a crippling stab when it happened). A month later I went back and saw a different GP. I now had had a cough for some six weeks and had lost weight I could not regain despite eating normally. I was sent to our pioneering hospital for chest related problems (Harefield) for an xray. To cut the rest short I went from seeing my own GP for the first time to being on anti TB drugs (Chemoprophylaxis) within the week.

My point is, my course was intensive but only lasted six months and I was completely cured of TB - finally given the all clear with minimal scarring eighteen months after diagnosis (as was my, then, 18 month old who was found to be a carrier). Back in the 1950s after three years of treatment my mum obviously was not so lucky. How anti TB medication has moved on.

If the consultants at Charing Cross had considered this mystery illness might have been a recurrence of TB, which her body had not managed to fight itself - only leaving it dormant - it might have been a different story. They were even told about her TB because they had thought that the extensive scarring on her lungs may had been cancer.

It is only hindsight that makes us wonder. This is not damp backstreet Victorian England we are talking about, this was the 20th Century. Proving how medicine for one disease has advance in less than 50 years.

If it wasn't for this advance, myself and my daughter would really be gazing down a barrel - the same way as my mother.

TB is 100% preventable and 100% curable (though scaringly there is now a new drug resistant bacteria) yet it has been declared by the WHO as a international crisis. It still kills more people every year than any other disease. When I read the statistics 2 years ago, 24,000,000 new cases world wide per year, 4-5,000,000 deaths.

Given the choice, I would personally choose conventional medication. I do not believe a placebo would have been as effective...

ok. Typed too much. wrists hurt.

LOL Mr Sleep (who said that?)

Without casting aspersions on ones chosen profession... I must state with certainty that I am with CE and Yshania. Our medical system may be flawed, but the science behind it is sound.

I find it odd Thantor has taken issue with what he calls 'modern medicine' as a whole, rather than just cite specific practices that he believes can be refuted through a valid scientific study.

Originally posted by Yshania:
<STRONG>LOL Mr Sleep (who said that?) </STRONG>

It's an old joke involving Waverly, ask him about it, he will remember it better than I.

On the medical note, medicine in the UK is not all it should be, my aunt got diagnosed with a brain tumor last year. The only reason i mention this is that if my aunt had not been holidaying in Australia we are almost certain that she would have not been diagnosed properly in this country. Diagnosis is a big issue with these problems, it turns out that tumor had been growing for many years only to be diagnosed in another country.

Just another note about 'mind over matter'. Not being discussed I know but...

When I finally ended up in Charing Cross hospital following yet another bi-weekly asthma attack, I realised that my Kung Fu instructor may have been wrong about asthma being a psychosematic (sp) disease and that I really should use my inhalers as prescribed. Needless to say, I did, I stopped training with him, and not one more attack (in six years...)

I think the human body is a great machine and it's abilities to heal are phenominal, but sometimes it needs a little extra help.

I don't really see the contradiction between "old-fashioned" medicine and what Thantor's discussing. Sure, he's throwing New Age terms at it (and terms in fairness which I sling around, too), and I think he goes over the top in making references to people like Bohr or Einstein, who would have scorned grasping cross-disciplinary phrases without actually doing the work and integrating entire theories.

What I'd suggest is that naturopathic medicine isn't necessarily antipathetic to conventional medicine. It doesn't represent a distinctly different approach as much as a way of viewing the patient and the healing process--if I understand it rightly. (After he discussed it, I went out on the internet and started dipping into naturopathic websites.) It reminds me, in a way, of so-called "alternative" medical therapies like therapeutic touch and aromatherapy, or acupuncture. They were jokes twenty years ago, much as chiropractics was about seventy years ago. The first two are now part of standard regimen in major hospitals throughout the US, and administered by physicians and nurses. (Acupuncture is being added, at least in some hospitals.) Both are seen as useful adjuncts to conventional medicine, and not substitutes.

(And for the record, I have no vested interest in naturopathic theories. Hell, I'm alive today because of conventional medicine. If it weren't for the latest anti-asthmatics that have appeared over the past ten years, I'd be dead--and even the horrible old stuff that was around in the 50's and 60's kept me kicking long enough to survive. )

@mr Sleep: I'm sorry to hear about your grandma. Diagnostics of a brain tumour is a difficult topic, and we still have a very long way to go. Medicine, like all science, is constantly developing and self-revising.

@Yshania: You must mean psychosomatic, when a disorder or condition has a physical manifestation but is caused by psychological mechanisms affecting the body. Well, sometimes asthma has a psychosomatic component, but even when it has, it can be lethal to stop taking medicines! A very good example is ulcer. An ulcer often develops due to long term stress factors, but you should still eat Losec if you get one!

Originally posted by Yshania:
<STRONG>I realised that my Kung Fu instructor may have been wrong about asthma being a psychosematic (sp) disease and that I really should use my inhalers as prescribed. Needless to say, I did, I stopped training with him, and not one more attack (in six years...)</STRONG>

...and I've heard people say that psuedoscience, even if incorrect, harms no one... Well done figuring out the truth yourself, Yshania.

Posted by Fable - What I'd suggest is that naturopathic medicine isn't necessarily antipathetic to conventional medicine. It doesn't represent a distinctly different approach as much as a way of viewing the patient and the healing process--if I understand it rightly. (After he discussed it, I went out on the internet and started dipping into naturopathic websites.) It reminds me, in a way, of so-called "alternative" medical therapies like therapeutic touch and aromatherapy, or acupuncture. They were jokes twenty years ago, much as chiropractics was about seventy years ago. The first two are now part of standard regimen in major hospitals throughout the US, and administered by physicians and nurses. (Acupuncture is being added, at least in some hospitals.) Both are seen as useful adjuncts to conventional medicine, and not substitutes

As a layperson, not educated in medicine, I understand there is alternative medicine and complimentary medicine. To give a basic example of my understanding of alternative medicine, Chinese treatment of eczema. Not suitable for all but highly effective in some. Complimentary medicine for me would include chiropractice. (Twisted spine! ) no, joking aside, through bad habits and posture I was recommended to see one. Along with the pain killers, his treatment and advice, and my sticking to his advice, I have made a huge improvement.

@C E - thanks for correcting my spelling, I understood the theory but should not have been so lazy - I should have pulled the dictionary (like Fable!)

Yshania writes:
When I finally ended up in Charing Cross hospital following yet another bi-weekly asthma attack, I realised that my Kung Fu instructor may have been wrong about asthma being a psychosematic (sp) disease and that I really should use my inhalers as prescribed. Needless to say, I did, I stopped training with him, and not one more attack (in six years...)

The problem's that asthma is a disease caused by any one of several possible conditions. It can be psychosomatic, but usually isn't, as physicians have finally realized in the last couple of decades. What occurs physically is that the body senses through what are called "beta receptors" what it believes is a massive invasion, and provides an over-compensating response.

I think an oddly accurate analogy would be an assumption that a food cart coming over from Mexico was actually a nuclear attack right over the US, at which point the US government would respond with missiles designed to destroy whatever was supposedly in the air. End result: well, we nuked the US, but we sure got rid of them Russkies.

Many modern anti-asthmatic regimens include beta-blockers, as a result. They actually don't block all the sensing, but they do lessen it, so that the system responds to fewer substances and with less vigor. ("Hey, it's not the Russkies, this time! It's only the French! And they've got WW II tanks behind the Maginot Line!") There are also substances like Albuterol that can lessen the swelling in the lungs to permit the escape of carbon dioxide. (It's another mistake that asthmatics can't breathe in air. Actually, we can't exhale CO2, to get in the air.)

Keep seeing a good physician, Yshania. You won't regret it.

@ Fable - great analogy! lol!

But it is the Sukhoi jets I fear! But after being at the Farnborough airshow where they were banned from vertical take off because the would blast great holes in the tarmac, then seeing the Harriers vertically take of and bow to the crowd - I feel somewhat comforted by western medicines lol!

If this double posts I apologise in advance!

Anyhow - my modem is going WAY slow now (probably because I am on AOL and the US are getting busy lol!) - I will sign off. See ya tomorrow!