I've been getting a really positive response to the last post of a medical nature that I wrote, and as I was responding to a comment left by Mesh, I realized that I had enough for another one. This is about the various major schools of medicine and alternative medicine.
Once again, this is just me talking. The information provided herein is accurate as far as I know, and interpreted by me for my own uses. I am not a doctor, and have no formal medical training. Caveat emptor.
The following are some of the major branches of Western medicine. I'm not going to get into Eastern or tribal medicine, as the former is a whole different ball of wax and the latter is not really all that relevant. Essentially, what we've got here is the main trunk of scientific medicine that traces its lineage all the way back to ancient times and up through such minds as Hippocrates, Aristotle, etc., and that tradition's various bastard children: homeopathy, chiropractic, and osteopathy.
"Allopathic" refers to scientific medicine as proscribed by the AMA, etc. When you meet an MD, they're a practitioner of allopathic medicine. A better term would be "Hippocratic", as what is in view is the current manifestation of Western scientific medicine dating all the way back to the Greeks. This is the standard to which everything else is an "alternative". The thesis of Hippocratic medicine is that the body is, more or less, a chemical machine, and that disease is the result of chemical abberations caused by some combination of diet, genetics, infection, and environment, among other things. [Actually, the term "allopathic" was coined by the founder of homeopathy as a perjorative, but the term has stuck and has largely lost its negative connotations.]
"Homeopathic" is a specific branch of alternative medicine which deals with the administration of extremely dilute solutions of various minerals, vitamins, and herbs, solutions so dilute that the solute is undetectable. The thesis of homeopathic medicine is that all substances have various spiritual/metaphysical properties, and that symptoms are the result of imbalances in these substances. The theory goes that water retains a "memory" of things once dissolved in it after they are removed, and that this "memory" can be used to correct imbalances of various sorts in the body. Unsurprisingly, there is no evidence to indicate that this does anything at all, and the original founder of the discipline - an 18th-19th century German - was something of a mystic.
"Chiropractic" refers to another branch of alternative medicine which focuses on manipulative therapy, especially of the spinal column. This was founded by an American magnetic healer around the turn of the last century. The essential thesis is that all disease is caused by irregularities in the nervous system, which in turn cause imbalances in the body's natural intelligence/energy. These irregularities are called subluxations, and are normally treated by manipulating the spine. Like homeopathy, there is no good evidence to suggest that chiropractic does anything that a decent backrub can't.
"Osteopathy" was originally very similar to chiropractic, and was also founded in the American Midwest in the late 19th century. It is another manipulative therapy field, and originally stated that all disease was the result of misalignments in skeletal structure which produce interruptions/aberrations in blood flow. Osteopathic practice has moved far from its roots, however, and today osteopathic medicine is essentially "Hippocrates lite", as osteopaths prescribe drugs and perform surgeries in ways generally indistinguishable from normal doctors. In fact, osteopaths are licensed physicians in all fifty states and the percentage of osteopaths that perform the manipulative therapy upon which osteopathy is based has been steadily shrinking.
So there's that. I'm sure I've missed something. I'm sure someone will point it out to me. I'm tired. I'd say I'm going to go to bed, but circumstances have conspired to make that pretty unlikely.
Posted by ryan at February 26, 2005 1:22 AM | TrackBackAcupuncture? Herbal treatments?
Posted by: Evan Donovan at February 26, 2005 6:09 PMAcupuncture is Eastern medicine, and I'll talk about that later. "Herbal treatments" is so broad a subject that you can't actually talk about it like that. Just about every form of medicine utilizes treatments that are herbal in nature somewhere along the line.
Posted by: ryan at February 26, 2005 6:57 PMI agree, this is interesting. What about chiropractic just for a bad back? I know you say that it does nothing more than a good backrub, but could there be cases in which it does nothing less than relatively minor back surgery?
Posted by: Kevin at February 27, 2005 2:10 AMNope. Think about it. Back surgery? The only reasons I know of to even have surgery on one's back involve setting bones (and if they needed surgery to do it, no amount of external manipulation will do the trick) or the removal of something that shouldn't be there (again, surgery is the only option). No one get's surgery for a "bad back". Those are caused by muscle tension, which is caused largely by a combination of stress, bad posture, and environmental factors (sleep patterns, office chairs, backpacks, etc.).
Posted by: ryan at February 27, 2005 7:30 AMI see your point for that kind of a bad back, but I was thinking more in terms of scoliosis. I was under the impression that, depending on the degrees of severity, both surgery and chiropractic have been used to treat it. If so, then surgery would not involve removing a foreign object or setting bones (unless I've misunderstood what you mean by this- I'm thinking it refers to broken bones). And, bypassing the whole nervous system thesis, isn't the manipulation of the spine supposed to straighten it? Assuming that this is correct, it seems that advances in chiropractic care should be able to eliminate the need for some of this kind of surgery. Of course, it's also possible that I've been subject to a veritable font of disninformation.
Posted by: Kevin at February 27, 2005 4:31 PMScoliosis is incurable. No amount of manipulation will straighten a spine that is actually crooked. Treatments for scoliosis involve braces worn about the torso to enforce straight spinal growth but are only effective while there is still a decent amount of growth left to do. Chiropractic is not an alternative here, as the brace must be worn pretty much all the time to have any effect. Other treatments include the surgical fusion of vertabrae to reduce range of motion, thereby also encouraging straightening. Again: chiropractic is not an option. But once the spine has actually grown crooked, there really isn't much to do, chiropractic or no. Chiropractic may provide temporary relief from pain - though most people with scoliosis don't have pain from the condition - and the jury is out as to whether chiropractic can serve as a good supplement to a normal treatment course (braces, exercises, etc. plus some spinal manipulation) but it isn't going to resolve any of the problems.
I should thank you, Kevin, for bringing scoliosis to mind. Here we really do have a diagnosible spinal problem, where chiropractic should really shine, and it really doesn't seem to be of significant clinical benefit.
Oh, and "the removal of something that shouldn't be there" is not limited to foreign objects. Cysts, infected lymph nodes, malignancies, etc. are mostly what I had in mind. Surgery is sometimes used to set broken bones that are so out of place that external manipulation is impossible. This generally involves compound factures (bone sticking out through the skin - nasty) or when bones break into several pieces, requiring pins to be inserted to keep everything in place. Clearly, manipulation is no good in any of the above situations.
Posted by: ryan at February 28, 2005 12:17 AMThanks. I was wondering why you started talking about foreign objects and then I reread my comment only to discover that I had introduced the concept. I don't know why.
Posted by: Kevin at February 28, 2005 2:45 AM