Everyday more patients seek non conventional approaches to their non resolved medical problems. Many of these approaches are safe and recommended by credited physicians. At the same time, conventional medicine discredits this therapies because of lack of demonstrative clinical studies.

I believe many non conventional therapies should be includes after judicious consideration, and serious clinical studies should be performed when a positive balance between (good) efficacy and (low) risk is perceived.

In this way, many today’s innocuous, non conventional therapies could precede more aggressive mainstream therapeutical approaches.

Two main factual problems should be taken in consideration:

First the lack of clinical studies comes from huge imbalance between private pharmaceutical funding and that of non conventional therapies. This brings up the ethical question: Is clinical research really at patient´s service or at the service of pharmacology?

Secondly, I believe that not only "scientifically" proven medicine acceptable. Good clinical sense should always come first, based when necessary but never exclusively on clinical studies. In this sense, we must remember that most of our conventional practice is based on "accepted" opinions and not in the so called "science”. Many of the cases because of obvious reasons ... nobody is refraining from performing CPR to a arrested patient, or ventilate a patient in critical respiratory failure just because no randomized, double blind, controlled studies were made to demonstrate its efficacy in that particular situation.

As a consequence my position is to approach non conventional medicines as an opportunity rather than as a problem.

Integral health care is the future:

http://www.integralhealthcare.info/

In this sense, a definite yes for integrative medicine.

Dear to achieve real sound health status it should involve a comprehensive health forms.

In many cases, unconventional forms of medicine are often controversial. If this is the case, these forms of medicine shouldn't be part of the national healthcare. There should be a kind of consensus before some forms of medicine are included in the national healthcare.

I believe that absolutely. But some are effective. So when screened it can be included

Every system has its own scope and limitations. When the mainstream medicine doesn't provide a curative effect people look for alternative/unconventional methods. Based on the success rate it can be included in the healthcare policy and also the safety can be verified time to time.

Afterall patients have all the rights to choose their Doctor/system. Nobody can measure the suffering & inconvenience other than the individual who is suffering.

Acredito que sim, inclusive estamos caminhando para isso, e destaco ainda que grandes estudos populacionais estão sendo realizadas a fim de mensurar a efetividade de muitas práticas da medicina integrativa. Ademais sou do pensamento que se não é prejudicial e a pessoa se sente bem ao realizar determinadas práticas, que ela a realize.

I think alternative medicine is a mix of

-traditional medicin (herbs etc, which could be usefull)

-fake medicin (no harm unless toxic, undesirable if wild animals have to die for it)

-unconventional medicine (methods from the past that are not working, new methods that might work), etc etc

So in some cases alternative medicine might be usefull, but it impossible to judge about such broad spectrum as a whole.

“Unconventional” suggests a narrow Western framework

It is my conviction that all medicine should be allowed; however, as with any system in medicine one must go be the testimonial or unverified conclusion of benefit. How well trained are the herbalist, acupuncturist, etc? My daughter in law is very well trained and examined in her expertise as an herbalist and acupuncturist. As with any form of medicine, the benefit to the patient/client is what the practitioner should monitor, and cure or amelioration of signs and symptoms of the disease or problem is what needs to be assessed. Especially if there is no cure with modern "Western" medicine, I believe it is imperative for the patient and clinician to seek other means to treat the disorder and distress. This includes homeopathic medical assistance and/or prayer for the benefit of the patient. A patient oriented model of care should be utilized. Both Western mainstream model and treatment should shake hands with the homeopathic professional (such as herbalists, acupuncturists, massage, dance and play therapists). Clinical trials should demonstrate effectiveness both individually and collectively,

TCM should be part of healthcare system, but whether it is part of national healthcare depends on politics and policy

Everyone is free to choose how to be treated if he pays for himself but therapies paid for with general taxation must be proven effective.

The national health system must provide essential assistance for reasons of financial sustainability. Furthermore, for ethical reasons the tax payer must not be obliged to pay for treatments without evidence of effectiveness.

Everyday more patients seek non conventional approaches to their non resolved medical problems. Many of these approaches are safe and recommended by credited physicians. At the same time, conventional medicine discredits this therapies because of lack of demonstrative clinical studies.

I believe many non conventional therapies should be includes after judicious consideration, and serious clinical studies should be performed when a positive balance between (good) efficacy and (low) risk is perceived.

In this way, many today’s innocuous, non conventional therapies could precede more aggressive mainstream therapeutical approaches.

Two main factual problems should be taken in consideration:

First the lack of clinical studies comes from huge imbalance between private pharmaceutical funding and that of non conventional therapies. This brings up the ethical question: Is clinical research really at patient´s service or at the service of pharmacology?

Secondly, I believe that not only "scientifically" proven medicine acceptable. Good clinical sense should always come first, based when necessary but never exclusively on clinical studies. In this sense, we must remember that most of our conventional practice is based on "accepted" opinions and not in the so called "science”. Many of the cases because of obvious reasons ... nobody is refraining from performing CPR to a arrested patient, or ventilate a patient in critical respiratory failure just because no randomized, double blind, controlled studies were made to demonstrate its efficacy in that particular situation.

As a consequence my position is to approach non conventional medicines as an opportunity rather than as a problem.

Everyday more patients seek non conventional approaches to their non resolved medical problems. Many of these approaches are safe and recommended by credited physicians. At the same time, conventional medicine discredits this therapies because of lack of demonstrative clinical studies.

I believe many non conventional therapies should be includes after judicious consideration, and serious clinical studies should be performed when a positive balance between (good) efficacy and (low) risk is perceived.

In this way, many today’s innocuous, non conventional therapies could precede more aggressive mainstream therapeutical approaches.

Two main factual problems should be taken in consideration:

First the lack of clinical studies comes from huge imbalance between private pharmaceutical funding and that of non conventional therapies. This brings up the ethical question: Is clinical research really at patient´s service or at the service of pharmacology?

Secondly, I believe that not only "scientifically" proven medicine acceptable. Good clinical sense should always come first, based when necessary but never exclusively on clinical studies. In this sense, we must remember that most of our conventional practice is based on "accepted" opinions and not in the so called "science”. Many of the cases because of obvious reasons ... nobody is refraining from performing CPR to a arrested patient, or ventilate a patient in critical respiratory failure just because no randomized, double blind, controlled studies were made to demonstrate its efficacy in that particular situation.

As a consequence my position is to approach non conventional medicines as an opportunity rather than as a problem.

If by unconventional medicine we mean Alternative medicine, then I suggest that it be added to national health care policy.

“Evidence-based medicine” tries to reduce variations in practice, reduce inappropriate care, and reduce waste by using results of studies of large groups of people as the basis for medical guidelines. On the other hand, some feel that it is bad medical policy to apply general rules to all cases and that medicine requires that the physician use his or her knowledge of the particular patient in deciding on the course of treatment along with the patient. What do you think?

Dear colleagues, you touched on a very important and very sensitive topic, which may be worded as the following: "The role and place of alternative medicine in modern medicine."

I think this topic deserves the most extensive and detailed discussion both at Researchgate and at scientific conferences and in the pages of scientific journals. This issue is highly topical today because conventional medicine, which relied on antibiotic therapy, has begun to be stuck. This was eloquently expressed by the Head of the World Health Organization Margaret Chan: “Medicine, as we know it, has come to an end – antibiotics do not work!” In addition, she believes that doctors do not have enough therapeutic agents – the new therapies should be developed.

Without analyzing the reasons which led to the difficulties that have arisen in conventional medicine, it is safe to say that it will be rescued by the integration with photomedicine!

The union of conventional medicine and phototherapy (photobiomodulation therapy) may become such highly effective alliance. We confidently declare this because our Research Laboratory of Quantum Biology and Quantum Medicine of VN Karazin Kharkiv National University has been studying the patterns of action of the low-intensity optical spectrum electromagnetic radiation on biological subjects and the development of phototherapy devices for more than 25 years.

During this period, together with the “Laser and Health” Corporation, we have developed more than 90 types of devices and their modifications (www.kor-pml.com), held 50 conferences "Application of lasers in medicine and biology" (www.almb.karazin.ua); we also publish the international scientific and practical journal “Photobiology and Photomedicine” (www.fnfjournal.univer.kharkov.ua).

We are ready for further detailed discussion of the integration of conventional medicine and photomedicine.

yes I think its Should unconventional forms of medicine be part of national healthcare

So called 'unconventional medicine' is only that when we are looking at it from a biomedical standpoint. Many of these practices are the norm in the cultures where they originated. Should they be included in current medical practices? That's a difficult one to answer. In many instances, examining them from the Western scientific point of view takes them out of their milieu and alters their effectiveness. The question remains, how can we study these practices without losing the aspects that make them effective? Or is it even possible?

PHOTOBIOMODULATION THERAPY AND ITS PLACE

IN MEDICINE OF THE 21st CENTURY

A.M.Korobov

V.N.Karazin Kharkiv National University, Research Laboratory of Quantum Biology

and Quantum Medicine

In 2012, the head of the World Health Organization, Margaret Chan, said that medicine, as we know it, came to an end—antibiotics do not work.

But antibiotics do not work, mainly because they are not delivered to the pathology zone in the required quantity due to the presence of lymphocytic shaft. Lymphocytic shaft can be overcome with the help of light, restoring microcirculation in the area of pathology.

The low efficacy of pharmacotherapy is due to the lack of light needed to transfer the existing therapeutic molecule and the organic molecule into which the therapeutic molecule must integrate into an excited state. It is possible to increase the effectiveness of substitution pharmacotherapy only by including photobiomodulation therapy in the therapeutic process.

Since all the processes in a living organism are mostly photochemical, then the proven laws of photochemistry are powerful evidence-based arguments. These laws were formulated by T. Grotgus and D. Dreyper more than 200 years ago (first law of photochemistry), J. Stark and A. Einstein more than 100 years ago (second law of photochemistry), R. Bunsen and G. Rosko more than 160 years ago (third the law of photochemistry). And the decisive argument for photobiomodulation therapy will be a very young quantum theory of the biological action of light, which is in a state of rapid development.

It turns out a paradoxical situation - photobiomodulation therapy, which for decades pharmacists considered to be a competitor, becomes the “magic wand” that will restore the reputation of both antibiotic therapy and all pharmacotherapy.

Conclusion: This direction - pharmacotherapy plus photobiomodulation therapy - will be dominant in the next 5-7 years both in scientific research and in applied medicine. And these studies and clinical trials will be completed with the development of new treatment protocols in which photobiomodulation therapy will occupy a worthy place as an equal, and in some cases, as a leading therapeutic factor. The signing of the peace protocol will end the long-term “war” of pharmacotherapy against photobiomodulation therapy.@@

If unconventional parts of medicine become more prat of the modern medical system (which is compared to many 'alternative ways' very very young!) it is to be feared that they become as well part of the medical-money system… But this won't be good because the modern medical System is illness-orinetated.

Example: when I did my studies they told me in inner Medicine, that a Patient with Diabetes must take "light products" because he has to nurish sugarfree. The Industry found a lot of products. No one told the patients that Aspartam for example is metabolized in the Body and one step of it is Aceton! Everybody can do this Experiment: drink a coke with sugar and on another day (same time) a coke sugarfree and yo become more Palpitation of the heart, because the effect is not the Coffein, it is the Aceton which flows for ashort time in your Body until this substance is metabolized too.

Furthermore if patients drink swwet beverages the body expects sugar but no sugar Comes and the Body adapts - the insulin-receptor decreeses tehir senibility. But hey no Problem: the Industry has another idea: isulin-sensitizer (one of the expensivst drugs in modern tratment of Diabetes)…

Examples like the mentioned above are too many to list here but the modern Medicine is contaminated with the wrong mind-set! Therefore humans have more and more diseases worldwide...

Unconventional medicine encompasses any form of treatment outside “allopathic” medicine. Many oriental countries have their own form of indigenous medicine for centuries e.g. Chinese herbal medicine, Indian ayurvedic medicine. In fact Indian government has enrolled AYUSH (Ayurveda, Yoga,Unani, Siddha, Homeopathy) medicine in national healthcare.

Ayurveda (literally Ayu = longevity, Veda = knowledge) i.e. the knowledge of how to prolong life meaningfully is practised in India since time immemorial. A person is born with multiple disease potential residing in his genetic set up which is manifested at different times in life according to environmental exposure, activity of genes which furthers potential of future disease. This decides the longevity which is limited. Ayurveda encompasses a holistic form of medicine which teaches that knowing the limited life span of every humans, how to live it out in healthy, productive way. It not only includes drug treatment of diseases but also healthy life practices like asanas, pranayams, meditation, compassion, benevolence, social service etc. Modern medicine is plagued by putting too much emphasis on outcome of only drug/procedural treatment with an aim of prolonging life indefinitely which naturally cannot and will not help a person to live meaningful, productive and peaceful longer life always (often aged people in demented, paralysed or otherwise indisposed state with/without support from near and dear ones). Most of the allopathic drugs are also “poisons” in long term use and have side effects or induce other disease e.g. antiplatelet and anticoagulant drugs cause hemorrhagic events, antibiotics disrupts normal bacterial flora, organ transplants induce multiple perils of immunosuppressed condition etc.. So really what is called “unconventional” in medicine is really the cornerstone or base of any kind of treatment.

Regarding evidence based medicine, literature abounds with its deficiencies. I can only say a few like [1] bias from statistics methods, trial financers, [2] a single treatment cannot be equally effective for every person with a problem all over the world, [3] outlook and belief of patient and doctor may be ignored.

I consider it appropriate to include phototherapy in the standards of treatment of the most common human diseases.

I am interested in your opinion on this issue.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/I_consider_it_appropriate_to_include_phototherapy_in_the_standards_of_treatment_of_the_most_common_human_diseases_What_do_you_think

Geir Bjorklund

In the US I'd say that conventional forms of medicine should be part of national healthcare..... around 30% of the population uninsured.

You don't know how lucky you are in Europe with national health schemes...

Every human being is different from another. As patients suffering from diseases, they would differ as well. Their healthcare predicaments should also be treated in an individual manner and by this, each person should be given the choice in terms of their healthcare preference. If alternative medical approach is their choice, then the insurance providers should respect that. And that should be respected as well by the national health care program.

Zoraida P Aguilar The US is one of 2 countries in the world that does not have some form of national health service. One has to work in order to get health insurance. The only thing one can do in the US is not get sick. There is no choice here, unfortunately.

I know, Alan F Rawle . I live here in the US.

Zoraida P Aguilar

Yes, I know you live in the US from seeing your profile.

A few years' ago I spent 4 days in hospital with pneumonia. The bill was $80000. Luckily I was (and am) insured and 100% of this was covered above our high deductible ($5500).

Take a look at:

https://www.bbc.com/news/av/business-49437287/why-are-people-in-the-usa-living-shorter-lives

Yes and people especially those in the low income levels are unable to afford healthcare. Some of them are students with children.

Aren't alternative medicines that are proved to work just called medicines?

Alexander Malm Rather like the expression 'near-miss' which is actually a near-hit....

I was out hunting over the weekend with a friend when a bullet missed his shoulder by 6 inches....

Took his head off.....

Alan F Rawle near miss is a bit of a misnomer

I'd ask what calibur but I note that that is the one type of measurement where the US mix their metric and imperial units

Stefano Alice

I disagree. Everyone is not free to choose what medical treatment they want or require. We had a friend with Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He had no insurance. He was told ‘Your treatment is $5 million with an immediate down payment of $99,000 with no guaranteed outcome of success’. He told us ‘I know what I will die of’. And he was right. Totally immoral.....

Yes it should. As long as it is able to solve the intended problem, why not? It could be cheaper than conventional medicine and so the reach will be wider.

Maurice Ekpenyong

I trust and hope that you are never sick when you come to the US.....

Alan F Rawle

The healthcare system in Italy is a regionally based national health service known as Servizio Sanitario Nazionale (SSN). It provides universal coverage to citizens and residents, with public healthcare largely free of charge. Unconventional forms of treatments aren't covered by the public system. I explained the reasons for this and why I think it's right.

I'm sorry for what happened to your friend but I can't see how unconventional medicine could have helped him.

Perhaps you mean that you would like a taxpayer-funded health care system in your country. It's a respectable opinion, but I think that we were debating something else.

@Stefano Alice

I think that having the freedom to choose is wonderful. In the US there’s not that ability and medical bills are the largest cause of bankruptcy. So any other debate here is irrelevant.

Yes it should be considered. My reasons that we should consider is because wether we approve this or not, people still go for alternative medicine. And the moment we sideline it, we won't be able to do in-depth studies of the benefits or distraction these has on the health of the population. Bringing them closer into the healthy system will therefore not only give public health the upper hand to control their activities, but also help restrict a number of falsendalpractices perpetuated by these groups

I agree whith Dr Emmerencia. Only the presence of alternative medical technikes in the heath systems will let us learn the proper indications and their real efficacy in different diseases, symptoms and clinical situations.