▲ 409 ▼ Alternative medicine (thelemmy.club) submitted 1 month ago by Track_Shovel@slrpnk.net to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 165 comments fedilink hide all child comments The only reason I keep Facebook is for unhinged stuff like this
[–] homes@piefed.world 178 points 1 month ago (15 children) If “alternative medicine” worked, it would just be called “medicine“. permalink fedilink source hideshow 18 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 63 points 1 month ago (7 children) Im all on the "listen to the medical experts" train. There are however some medicines and treatments that legitimately started as "alternative". A lot of it is horseshit though. Also modern medicine isn't infallible(nor the people that practice it). Statistically though, it's fucking high magic compared to most internet sourced diagnoses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Mediocre_Bard_Redeux@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (2 children) Also modern medicine isn’t infallible(nor the people that practice it). Have friends in the medical field, a lot of time they are just sort of trying shit and then are happy it worked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 41 points 1 month ago (2 children) Medical science is just that, medicine that follows the scientific method. (Or at least it's supposed to). The scientific method is basically testing guesses (sometimes educated ones) and seeing what happens. There's a whole lot of structure and guidelines, but testing guesses(hypotheses) is where it's at mostly. The current state of any science is usually "the best theory we have right now, given the data and resources available to us" Some people hear that and think "look, they're just guessing, why should I listen to them?" and thats absolutely valid. Where that falls down is that they then go on to assume all guesses are equal and ignore the time and resources that went in to that current scientific best guess. Is it always correct? no, is it more likely to be beneficial than a random social media post by an influencer with no medical expertise? Generally yes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago (1 child) The people who "guess" are guessing way down the decision tree, not like hmm is this cancer or a flu? They also are highly trained, in a field that is centuries old. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Indeed, though I'd argue that's an issue with modern academia as an industry rather than the scientific method itself. edit: not that the scientific method doesn't have it's flaws. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) I would expand "testing guesses" to repeatedly testing guesses. It's a fundamental thing to be able to recreate the testing results, or it's not science at all it's just fuckign around lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] fizzle@quokk.au 17 points 1 month ago (1 child) sort of trying shit and then are happy it worked Most professions could be described like this, but when doctors are "trying shit" it is backed up by many years of training and education, and their behavior is scrutinised by professional bodies and so on. When your local quack is "trying shit" it's just based on the vibe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (21 children) The difference between medicine and "alternative medicine" is proof of effectiveness. If something provably works it's medicine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments load more comments (21 replies) [–] fizzle@quokk.au 9 points 1 month ago (1 child) "Alternative medicine" is too broad a term to be helpful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Yeah, I saw it after I'd posted. I need to be more specific in how I mean "alternative" here. What I mean is "not of the current scientific consensus" , which I realise isn't exactly the same wording as the wikipedia definition Thats my bad. I also failed to mention that it also works the other way as well, where current science is discredited(fully or partially) , due to flaws in it's methodology, reproducibility or some other reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) I think there are actually very few interventions which were "not of the current scientific consensus" which later became accepted medical practice. Also I think in the current era there are practically no alternative therapies by that definition which will later become medical practice. A salient example might be ketamine therapy. It's been a party drug since at least the 90s but in the last several years has become a government subsidised therapy for PTSD in Australia. That doesn't mean kids at ravfes were doing the therapy in the 90s, because the manner in which the ketamine is administered is the key to the beneficial outcome. That said, I think the treatments a medical doctor can prescribe or even recommend are less than a third of the treatments or behaviors that can manage a chronic illness. What I mean is, if you have a chronic condition there's (hopefully) medications that will help you manage it, but it's the lifestyle changes that will influence your quality of life in the coming decades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (1 child) The quote is from Tim Minchin. I think the track name is Storm. It's him talking to someone at a dinner party and he's trying to bite his tongue when someone new starts talking stupidity, but it gets to a point where he breaks and goes off on a rent. It's a very well written and entertaining bit. What what's missing from the quote is something along the lines of "You know what they call alternate medicine that is proven to work? Medicine" The whole point of the quote is exactly what you are saying that some medicines legitimately started as alternative medicines Edit: i realize now it might not have been a quote at all regardless of how similar it is the that Tim Minchin bit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deebster@infosec.pub 11 points 1 month ago "Herbal medicine's been around for thousands of years!" Indeed it has, and then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became 'medicine'. And the rest of it is just a nice bowl of soup and some potpourri. From Dara Ó Briain. Also from him: Chinese medicine, oh, Chinese medicine! "But there are billions of Chinese, Chinese medicine must be working." Here's the skinny on Chinese medicine. A hundred years ago the average life expectancy in China was 30. The life expectancy in China at the moment is 73. And it's not feckin' tiger penis that turned it around for the Chinese. Didn't do much for the tiger, if you don't mind me pointing out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (10 children) There are however some medicines and treatments that legitimately started as "alternative". What are those? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I think it depends how you frame this question. For example, aspirin originated from a compound in willow bark. Currently, most of us aren’t chewing on willow bark to relieve pain, but at some point that (or making willow bark teas, etc.) was the case. Whether you consider that as “alternative” depends on what point in history you ask that question. Leeches, which are still used today, also come to mind. Modern medicine has greatly refined how they’re used, but that’s not how it started. There are quite a few things that people noticed produced effects but didn’t understand the mechanism. Science changed that. However, if you consider using things with known properties in a wildly irresponsible manner as the definition of “alternative medicine,” that’s a very different question. Even when novel therapies from existing medicine do come to light at times, generally this is through scientific observation and testing, not Cletus taking horse medicine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* Thank you. For example, aspirin originated from a compound in willow bark. At the time mainstream medicine was rejecting use of willow bark? Or why it's considered alternative medicine? permalink fedilink source parent [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) Usually herbs found by ethnographers. Aspirin, for example, IIRC discovered by a scientist investigating traditional therapeutics (tree bark) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mirshafie@europe.pub 4 points 1 month ago (2 children) My pharma professors liked to say that if Aspirin was discovered today, it would never pass the bar for human trials, because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That's the best argument for alternative medicines that I've heard, and it's also something to consider when we think about how insanely high the bar is for compounds that are approved as medicines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Most medications are poorly understood (at best!) lol, it's trial and error all the way down. With some exceptions like the RNA messenger covid vaccine... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) it’s trial and error all the way down Oh God LD50 is the craziest thing ever. Here's how it works: Let's just assume dose-response is linear. So, go find what concentration of chemical X (medicine, food additive, cosmetic, whatever) kills 50% of the bacteria/rodent/etc population. Draw a line from there down to 0% dead at 0 concentration. Now decide what % of deaths is acceptable, given the benefit of chemical X. Use the line we just drew and that tells you what the regulations should set for max concentration under as-directed usage. This ignores facts like response curves are very often literally curves, sometimes with more than 1 minimum response curves (and lines!) often depend heavily on all sorts of other chemicals' presence in the environment, in varying mixtures & amounts It's a combinatorial explosion we can never meaningfully test against. We do what we can, with the tools that we have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That wasn't a blocker with antidepressants, for better or worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* I wonder if thats because we know very little about how the brain actually works in regards to how the brain create thoughts. It's so very much a mystery in many ways where thoughts are created permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Aspirin. Was a tincture or tea of white willow used as a folk medicine for generations until it got studied and the compound in it isolated by Bayer Cocaine. Indigenous population would chew coca leaves as a stimulant for various reasons and someone figured found out about it, studied it, and found out how to isolate the active compound and now we have Cocaine Opiates Opium Poppy was used for centuries for a variety of uses, but mostly recreational in the form of opium, then it got studied and turned into some of the most effective painkillers we have. (Morphine, codeine, heroin are naturally derived opium compounds, some others are synthetic or a blend such as oxycodone, methadone, fentanyl, carfentanyl) Edit: white birch bark(I'm not 100% certain this is the right tree, but it was a tree, please correct me if I'm wrong) found the correction in another comment permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (7 replies) [–] njordomir@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago Well said. A balanced viewpoint that doesn't try to be all black and white. Even the stupidest bullshit can sometimes contain a kernel of truth. That doesn't mean the 99% bullshit isn't any less shit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ignotum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) The issue is that alternative forms of medicine are most often studied scientifically and either found to work (upgraded to medicine) but more often than not it is found to have no greater effect than placebo or random chance, but these alternatives continue to be practiced, meaning people end up getting ineffective care, and their money is funneled into an industry incentivised to discredit and spread distrust towards real proven medicine permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 child) George Carlin from the grave: By calling it an 'alternative' you are directly implying that it is not the actual thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homes@piefed.world 6 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I miss that guy. Can you even imagine what he would have had to say about the first Trump presidency, let alone the second? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago As for the second i'd imagine the quote "are 51% of you really that fucking stupid? Colollary: If so, how do i sell so many tickets?" The first is more interesting. He was no fan of the Clintons, but he would have torn the M.A.G.A. slogan to shreads so many ways. The nazi stuff would have tipped the scales in the end. permalink fedilink source parent [–] dillekant@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) It's not alternative medicine though? It's like regular medicine but instead of it being prescribed he just thought he'd ingest some based on his own whims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homes@piefed.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) You misunderstand I’m speaking of “medicine”, as in the practice thereof. You’re thinking of “medication“. That’s not what I’m talking about. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (12 replies)
[–] Senal@programming.dev 63 points 1 month ago (7 children) Im all on the "listen to the medical experts" train. There are however some medicines and treatments that legitimately started as "alternative". A lot of it is horseshit though. Also modern medicine isn't infallible(nor the people that practice it). Statistically though, it's fucking high magic compared to most internet sourced diagnoses. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 14 child comments replies: [–] Mediocre_Bard_Redeux@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (2 children) Also modern medicine isn’t infallible(nor the people that practice it). Have friends in the medical field, a lot of time they are just sort of trying shit and then are happy it worked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 41 points 1 month ago (2 children) Medical science is just that, medicine that follows the scientific method. (Or at least it's supposed to). The scientific method is basically testing guesses (sometimes educated ones) and seeing what happens. There's a whole lot of structure and guidelines, but testing guesses(hypotheses) is where it's at mostly. The current state of any science is usually "the best theory we have right now, given the data and resources available to us" Some people hear that and think "look, they're just guessing, why should I listen to them?" and thats absolutely valid. Where that falls down is that they then go on to assume all guesses are equal and ignore the time and resources that went in to that current scientific best guess. Is it always correct? no, is it more likely to be beneficial than a random social media post by an influencer with no medical expertise? Generally yes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago (1 child) The people who "guess" are guessing way down the decision tree, not like hmm is this cancer or a flu? They also are highly trained, in a field that is centuries old. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Indeed, though I'd argue that's an issue with modern academia as an industry rather than the scientific method itself. edit: not that the scientific method doesn't have it's flaws. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) I would expand "testing guesses" to repeatedly testing guesses. It's a fundamental thing to be able to recreate the testing results, or it's not science at all it's just fuckign around lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] fizzle@quokk.au 17 points 1 month ago (1 child) sort of trying shit and then are happy it worked Most professions could be described like this, but when doctors are "trying shit" it is backed up by many years of training and education, and their behavior is scrutinised by professional bodies and so on. When your local quack is "trying shit" it's just based on the vibe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (21 children) The difference between medicine and "alternative medicine" is proof of effectiveness. If something provably works it's medicine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments load more comments (21 replies) [–] fizzle@quokk.au 9 points 1 month ago (1 child) "Alternative medicine" is too broad a term to be helpful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Yeah, I saw it after I'd posted. I need to be more specific in how I mean "alternative" here. What I mean is "not of the current scientific consensus" , which I realise isn't exactly the same wording as the wikipedia definition Thats my bad. I also failed to mention that it also works the other way as well, where current science is discredited(fully or partially) , due to flaws in it's methodology, reproducibility or some other reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) I think there are actually very few interventions which were "not of the current scientific consensus" which later became accepted medical practice. Also I think in the current era there are practically no alternative therapies by that definition which will later become medical practice. A salient example might be ketamine therapy. It's been a party drug since at least the 90s but in the last several years has become a government subsidised therapy for PTSD in Australia. That doesn't mean kids at ravfes were doing the therapy in the 90s, because the manner in which the ketamine is administered is the key to the beneficial outcome. That said, I think the treatments a medical doctor can prescribe or even recommend are less than a third of the treatments or behaviors that can manage a chronic illness. What I mean is, if you have a chronic condition there's (hopefully) medications that will help you manage it, but it's the lifestyle changes that will influence your quality of life in the coming decades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (1 child) The quote is from Tim Minchin. I think the track name is Storm. It's him talking to someone at a dinner party and he's trying to bite his tongue when someone new starts talking stupidity, but it gets to a point where he breaks and goes off on a rent. It's a very well written and entertaining bit. What what's missing from the quote is something along the lines of "You know what they call alternate medicine that is proven to work? Medicine" The whole point of the quote is exactly what you are saying that some medicines legitimately started as alternative medicines Edit: i realize now it might not have been a quote at all regardless of how similar it is the that Tim Minchin bit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deebster@infosec.pub 11 points 1 month ago "Herbal medicine's been around for thousands of years!" Indeed it has, and then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became 'medicine'. And the rest of it is just a nice bowl of soup and some potpourri. From Dara Ó Briain. Also from him: Chinese medicine, oh, Chinese medicine! "But there are billions of Chinese, Chinese medicine must be working." Here's the skinny on Chinese medicine. A hundred years ago the average life expectancy in China was 30. The life expectancy in China at the moment is 73. And it's not feckin' tiger penis that turned it around for the Chinese. Didn't do much for the tiger, if you don't mind me pointing out. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (10 children) There are however some medicines and treatments that legitimately started as "alternative". What are those? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I think it depends how you frame this question. For example, aspirin originated from a compound in willow bark. Currently, most of us aren’t chewing on willow bark to relieve pain, but at some point that (or making willow bark teas, etc.) was the case. Whether you consider that as “alternative” depends on what point in history you ask that question. Leeches, which are still used today, also come to mind. Modern medicine has greatly refined how they’re used, but that’s not how it started. There are quite a few things that people noticed produced effects but didn’t understand the mechanism. Science changed that. However, if you consider using things with known properties in a wildly irresponsible manner as the definition of “alternative medicine,” that’s a very different question. Even when novel therapies from existing medicine do come to light at times, generally this is through scientific observation and testing, not Cletus taking horse medicine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* Thank you. For example, aspirin originated from a compound in willow bark. At the time mainstream medicine was rejecting use of willow bark? Or why it's considered alternative medicine? permalink fedilink source parent [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) Usually herbs found by ethnographers. Aspirin, for example, IIRC discovered by a scientist investigating traditional therapeutics (tree bark) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mirshafie@europe.pub 4 points 1 month ago (2 children) My pharma professors liked to say that if Aspirin was discovered today, it would never pass the bar for human trials, because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That's the best argument for alternative medicines that I've heard, and it's also something to consider when we think about how insanely high the bar is for compounds that are approved as medicines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Most medications are poorly understood (at best!) lol, it's trial and error all the way down. With some exceptions like the RNA messenger covid vaccine... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) it’s trial and error all the way down Oh God LD50 is the craziest thing ever. Here's how it works: Let's just assume dose-response is linear. So, go find what concentration of chemical X (medicine, food additive, cosmetic, whatever) kills 50% of the bacteria/rodent/etc population. Draw a line from there down to 0% dead at 0 concentration. Now decide what % of deaths is acceptable, given the benefit of chemical X. Use the line we just drew and that tells you what the regulations should set for max concentration under as-directed usage. This ignores facts like response curves are very often literally curves, sometimes with more than 1 minimum response curves (and lines!) often depend heavily on all sorts of other chemicals' presence in the environment, in varying mixtures & amounts It's a combinatorial explosion we can never meaningfully test against. We do what we can, with the tools that we have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That wasn't a blocker with antidepressants, for better or worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* I wonder if thats because we know very little about how the brain actually works in regards to how the brain create thoughts. It's so very much a mystery in many ways where thoughts are created permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Aspirin. Was a tincture or tea of white willow used as a folk medicine for generations until it got studied and the compound in it isolated by Bayer Cocaine. Indigenous population would chew coca leaves as a stimulant for various reasons and someone figured found out about it, studied it, and found out how to isolate the active compound and now we have Cocaine Opiates Opium Poppy was used for centuries for a variety of uses, but mostly recreational in the form of opium, then it got studied and turned into some of the most effective painkillers we have. (Morphine, codeine, heroin are naturally derived opium compounds, some others are synthetic or a blend such as oxycodone, methadone, fentanyl, carfentanyl) Edit: white birch bark(I'm not 100% certain this is the right tree, but it was a tree, please correct me if I'm wrong) found the correction in another comment permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (7 replies) [–] njordomir@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago Well said. A balanced viewpoint that doesn't try to be all black and white. Even the stupidest bullshit can sometimes contain a kernel of truth. That doesn't mean the 99% bullshit isn't any less shit. permalink fedilink source parent [–] ignotum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) The issue is that alternative forms of medicine are most often studied scientifically and either found to work (upgraded to medicine) but more often than not it is found to have no greater effect than placebo or random chance, but these alternatives continue to be practiced, meaning people end up getting ineffective care, and their money is funneled into an industry incentivised to discredit and spread distrust towards real proven medicine permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Mediocre_Bard_Redeux@lemmy.world 40 points 1 month ago (2 children) Also modern medicine isn’t infallible(nor the people that practice it). Have friends in the medical field, a lot of time they are just sort of trying shit and then are happy it worked. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 41 points 1 month ago (2 children) Medical science is just that, medicine that follows the scientific method. (Or at least it's supposed to). The scientific method is basically testing guesses (sometimes educated ones) and seeing what happens. There's a whole lot of structure and guidelines, but testing guesses(hypotheses) is where it's at mostly. The current state of any science is usually "the best theory we have right now, given the data and resources available to us" Some people hear that and think "look, they're just guessing, why should I listen to them?" and thats absolutely valid. Where that falls down is that they then go on to assume all guesses are equal and ignore the time and resources that went in to that current scientific best guess. Is it always correct? no, is it more likely to be beneficial than a random social media post by an influencer with no medical expertise? Generally yes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago (1 child) The people who "guess" are guessing way down the decision tree, not like hmm is this cancer or a flu? They also are highly trained, in a field that is centuries old. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Indeed, though I'd argue that's an issue with modern academia as an industry rather than the scientific method itself. edit: not that the scientific method doesn't have it's flaws. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) I would expand "testing guesses" to repeatedly testing guesses. It's a fundamental thing to be able to recreate the testing results, or it's not science at all it's just fuckign around lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] fizzle@quokk.au 17 points 1 month ago (1 child) sort of trying shit and then are happy it worked Most professions could be described like this, but when doctors are "trying shit" it is backed up by many years of training and education, and their behavior is scrutinised by professional bodies and so on. When your local quack is "trying shit" it's just based on the vibe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Senal@programming.dev 41 points 1 month ago (2 children) Medical science is just that, medicine that follows the scientific method. (Or at least it's supposed to). The scientific method is basically testing guesses (sometimes educated ones) and seeing what happens. There's a whole lot of structure and guidelines, but testing guesses(hypotheses) is where it's at mostly. The current state of any science is usually "the best theory we have right now, given the data and resources available to us" Some people hear that and think "look, they're just guessing, why should I listen to them?" and thats absolutely valid. Where that falls down is that they then go on to assume all guesses are equal and ignore the time and resources that went in to that current scientific best guess. Is it always correct? no, is it more likely to be beneficial than a random social media post by an influencer with no medical expertise? Generally yes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago (1 child) The people who "guess" are guessing way down the decision tree, not like hmm is this cancer or a flu? They also are highly trained, in a field that is centuries old. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Indeed, though I'd argue that's an issue with modern academia as an industry rather than the scientific method itself. edit: not that the scientific method doesn't have it's flaws. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) I would expand "testing guesses" to repeatedly testing guesses. It's a fundamental thing to be able to recreate the testing results, or it's not science at all it's just fuckign around lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 16 points 1 month ago (1 child) The people who "guess" are guessing way down the decision tree, not like hmm is this cancer or a flu? They also are highly trained, in a field that is centuries old. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Indeed, though I'd argue that's an issue with modern academia as an industry rather than the scientific method itself. edit: not that the scientific method doesn't have it's flaws. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Senal@programming.dev 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Indeed, though I'd argue that's an issue with modern academia as an industry rather than the scientific method itself. edit: not that the scientific method doesn't have it's flaws. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) I would expand "testing guesses" to repeatedly testing guesses. It's a fundamental thing to be able to recreate the testing results, or it's not science at all it's just fuckign around lol permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] fizzle@quokk.au 17 points 1 month ago (1 child) sort of trying shit and then are happy it worked Most professions could be described like this, but when doctors are "trying shit" it is backed up by many years of training and education, and their behavior is scrutinised by professional bodies and so on. When your local quack is "trying shit" it's just based on the vibe. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 24 points 1 month ago (21 children) The difference between medicine and "alternative medicine" is proof of effectiveness. If something provably works it's medicine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 21 child comments load more comments (21 replies)
[–] fizzle@quokk.au 9 points 1 month ago (1 child) "Alternative medicine" is too broad a term to be helpful. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Senal@programming.dev 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Yeah, I saw it after I'd posted. I need to be more specific in how I mean "alternative" here. What I mean is "not of the current scientific consensus" , which I realise isn't exactly the same wording as the wikipedia definition Thats my bad. I also failed to mention that it also works the other way as well, where current science is discredited(fully or partially) , due to flaws in it's methodology, reproducibility or some other reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) I think there are actually very few interventions which were "not of the current scientific consensus" which later became accepted medical practice. Also I think in the current era there are practically no alternative therapies by that definition which will later become medical practice. A salient example might be ketamine therapy. It's been a party drug since at least the 90s but in the last several years has become a government subsidised therapy for PTSD in Australia. That doesn't mean kids at ravfes were doing the therapy in the 90s, because the manner in which the ketamine is administered is the key to the beneficial outcome. That said, I think the treatments a medical doctor can prescribe or even recommend are less than a third of the treatments or behaviors that can manage a chronic illness. What I mean is, if you have a chronic condition there's (hopefully) medications that will help you manage it, but it's the lifestyle changes that will influence your quality of life in the coming decades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Senal@programming.dev 1 point 1 month ago (1 child) Yeah, I saw it after I'd posted. I need to be more specific in how I mean "alternative" here. What I mean is "not of the current scientific consensus" , which I realise isn't exactly the same wording as the wikipedia definition Thats my bad. I also failed to mention that it also works the other way as well, where current science is discredited(fully or partially) , due to flaws in it's methodology, reproducibility or some other reason. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) I think there are actually very few interventions which were "not of the current scientific consensus" which later became accepted medical practice. Also I think in the current era there are practically no alternative therapies by that definition which will later become medical practice. A salient example might be ketamine therapy. It's been a party drug since at least the 90s but in the last several years has become a government subsidised therapy for PTSD in Australia. That doesn't mean kids at ravfes were doing the therapy in the 90s, because the manner in which the ketamine is administered is the key to the beneficial outcome. That said, I think the treatments a medical doctor can prescribe or even recommend are less than a third of the treatments or behaviors that can manage a chronic illness. What I mean is, if you have a chronic condition there's (hopefully) medications that will help you manage it, but it's the lifestyle changes that will influence your quality of life in the coming decades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] fizzle@quokk.au 5 points 1 month ago (1 child) I think there are actually very few interventions which were "not of the current scientific consensus" which later became accepted medical practice. Also I think in the current era there are practically no alternative therapies by that definition which will later become medical practice. A salient example might be ketamine therapy. It's been a party drug since at least the 90s but in the last several years has become a government subsidised therapy for PTSD in Australia. That doesn't mean kids at ravfes were doing the therapy in the 90s, because the manner in which the ketamine is administered is the key to the beneficial outcome. That said, I think the treatments a medical doctor can prescribe or even recommend are less than a third of the treatments or behaviors that can manage a chronic illness. What I mean is, if you have a chronic condition there's (hopefully) medications that will help you manage it, but it's the lifestyle changes that will influence your quality of life in the coming decades. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 7 points 1 month ago* (1 child) The quote is from Tim Minchin. I think the track name is Storm. It's him talking to someone at a dinner party and he's trying to bite his tongue when someone new starts talking stupidity, but it gets to a point where he breaks and goes off on a rent. It's a very well written and entertaining bit. What what's missing from the quote is something along the lines of "You know what they call alternate medicine that is proven to work? Medicine" The whole point of the quote is exactly what you are saying that some medicines legitimately started as alternative medicines Edit: i realize now it might not have been a quote at all regardless of how similar it is the that Tim Minchin bit permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Deebster@infosec.pub 11 points 1 month ago "Herbal medicine's been around for thousands of years!" Indeed it has, and then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became 'medicine'. And the rest of it is just a nice bowl of soup and some potpourri. From Dara Ó Briain. Also from him: Chinese medicine, oh, Chinese medicine! "But there are billions of Chinese, Chinese medicine must be working." Here's the skinny on Chinese medicine. A hundred years ago the average life expectancy in China was 30. The life expectancy in China at the moment is 73. And it's not feckin' tiger penis that turned it around for the Chinese. Didn't do much for the tiger, if you don't mind me pointing out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Deebster@infosec.pub 11 points 1 month ago "Herbal medicine's been around for thousands of years!" Indeed it has, and then we tested it all, and the stuff that worked became 'medicine'. And the rest of it is just a nice bowl of soup and some potpourri. From Dara Ó Briain. Also from him: Chinese medicine, oh, Chinese medicine! "But there are billions of Chinese, Chinese medicine must be working." Here's the skinny on Chinese medicine. A hundred years ago the average life expectancy in China was 30. The life expectancy in China at the moment is 73. And it's not feckin' tiger penis that turned it around for the Chinese. Didn't do much for the tiger, if you don't mind me pointing out. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 6 points 1 month ago (10 children) There are however some medicines and treatments that legitimately started as "alternative". What are those? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I think it depends how you frame this question. For example, aspirin originated from a compound in willow bark. Currently, most of us aren’t chewing on willow bark to relieve pain, but at some point that (or making willow bark teas, etc.) was the case. Whether you consider that as “alternative” depends on what point in history you ask that question. Leeches, which are still used today, also come to mind. Modern medicine has greatly refined how they’re used, but that’s not how it started. There are quite a few things that people noticed produced effects but didn’t understand the mechanism. Science changed that. However, if you consider using things with known properties in a wildly irresponsible manner as the definition of “alternative medicine,” that’s a very different question. Even when novel therapies from existing medicine do come to light at times, generally this is through scientific observation and testing, not Cletus taking horse medicine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* Thank you. For example, aspirin originated from a compound in willow bark. At the time mainstream medicine was rejecting use of willow bark? Or why it's considered alternative medicine? permalink fedilink source parent [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) Usually herbs found by ethnographers. Aspirin, for example, IIRC discovered by a scientist investigating traditional therapeutics (tree bark) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mirshafie@europe.pub 4 points 1 month ago (2 children) My pharma professors liked to say that if Aspirin was discovered today, it would never pass the bar for human trials, because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That's the best argument for alternative medicines that I've heard, and it's also something to consider when we think about how insanely high the bar is for compounds that are approved as medicines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Most medications are poorly understood (at best!) lol, it's trial and error all the way down. With some exceptions like the RNA messenger covid vaccine... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) it’s trial and error all the way down Oh God LD50 is the craziest thing ever. Here's how it works: Let's just assume dose-response is linear. So, go find what concentration of chemical X (medicine, food additive, cosmetic, whatever) kills 50% of the bacteria/rodent/etc population. Draw a line from there down to 0% dead at 0 concentration. Now decide what % of deaths is acceptable, given the benefit of chemical X. Use the line we just drew and that tells you what the regulations should set for max concentration under as-directed usage. This ignores facts like response curves are very often literally curves, sometimes with more than 1 minimum response curves (and lines!) often depend heavily on all sorts of other chemicals' presence in the environment, in varying mixtures & amounts It's a combinatorial explosion we can never meaningfully test against. We do what we can, with the tools that we have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That wasn't a blocker with antidepressants, for better or worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* I wonder if thats because we know very little about how the brain actually works in regards to how the brain create thoughts. It's so very much a mystery in many ways where thoughts are created permalink fedilink source parent [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Aspirin. Was a tincture or tea of white willow used as a folk medicine for generations until it got studied and the compound in it isolated by Bayer Cocaine. Indigenous population would chew coca leaves as a stimulant for various reasons and someone figured found out about it, studied it, and found out how to isolate the active compound and now we have Cocaine Opiates Opium Poppy was used for centuries for a variety of uses, but mostly recreational in the form of opium, then it got studied and turned into some of the most effective painkillers we have. (Morphine, codeine, heroin are naturally derived opium compounds, some others are synthetic or a blend such as oxycodone, methadone, fentanyl, carfentanyl) Edit: white birch bark(I'm not 100% certain this is the right tree, but it was a tree, please correct me if I'm wrong) found the correction in another comment permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (7 replies)
[–] CuddlyCassowary@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I think it depends how you frame this question. For example, aspirin originated from a compound in willow bark. Currently, most of us aren’t chewing on willow bark to relieve pain, but at some point that (or making willow bark teas, etc.) was the case. Whether you consider that as “alternative” depends on what point in history you ask that question. Leeches, which are still used today, also come to mind. Modern medicine has greatly refined how they’re used, but that’s not how it started. There are quite a few things that people noticed produced effects but didn’t understand the mechanism. Science changed that. However, if you consider using things with known properties in a wildly irresponsible manner as the definition of “alternative medicine,” that’s a very different question. Even when novel therapies from existing medicine do come to light at times, generally this is through scientific observation and testing, not Cletus taking horse medicine. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* Thank you. For example, aspirin originated from a compound in willow bark. At the time mainstream medicine was rejecting use of willow bark? Or why it's considered alternative medicine? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* Thank you. For example, aspirin originated from a compound in willow bark. At the time mainstream medicine was rejecting use of willow bark? Or why it's considered alternative medicine? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 8 points 1 month ago (1 child) Usually herbs found by ethnographers. Aspirin, for example, IIRC discovered by a scientist investigating traditional therapeutics (tree bark) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] mirshafie@europe.pub 4 points 1 month ago (2 children) My pharma professors liked to say that if Aspirin was discovered today, it would never pass the bar for human trials, because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That's the best argument for alternative medicines that I've heard, and it's also something to consider when we think about how insanely high the bar is for compounds that are approved as medicines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Most medications are poorly understood (at best!) lol, it's trial and error all the way down. With some exceptions like the RNA messenger covid vaccine... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) it’s trial and error all the way down Oh God LD50 is the craziest thing ever. Here's how it works: Let's just assume dose-response is linear. So, go find what concentration of chemical X (medicine, food additive, cosmetic, whatever) kills 50% of the bacteria/rodent/etc population. Draw a line from there down to 0% dead at 0 concentration. Now decide what % of deaths is acceptable, given the benefit of chemical X. Use the line we just drew and that tells you what the regulations should set for max concentration under as-directed usage. This ignores facts like response curves are very often literally curves, sometimes with more than 1 minimum response curves (and lines!) often depend heavily on all sorts of other chemicals' presence in the environment, in varying mixtures & amounts It's a combinatorial explosion we can never meaningfully test against. We do what we can, with the tools that we have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That wasn't a blocker with antidepressants, for better or worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* I wonder if thats because we know very little about how the brain actually works in regards to how the brain create thoughts. It's so very much a mystery in many ways where thoughts are created permalink fedilink source parent
[–] mirshafie@europe.pub 4 points 1 month ago (2 children) My pharma professors liked to say that if Aspirin was discovered today, it would never pass the bar for human trials, because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That's the best argument for alternative medicines that I've heard, and it's also something to consider when we think about how insanely high the bar is for compounds that are approved as medicines. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Most medications are poorly understood (at best!) lol, it's trial and error all the way down. With some exceptions like the RNA messenger covid vaccine... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) it’s trial and error all the way down Oh God LD50 is the craziest thing ever. Here's how it works: Let's just assume dose-response is linear. So, go find what concentration of chemical X (medicine, food additive, cosmetic, whatever) kills 50% of the bacteria/rodent/etc population. Draw a line from there down to 0% dead at 0 concentration. Now decide what % of deaths is acceptable, given the benefit of chemical X. Use the line we just drew and that tells you what the regulations should set for max concentration under as-directed usage. This ignores facts like response curves are very often literally curves, sometimes with more than 1 minimum response curves (and lines!) often depend heavily on all sorts of other chemicals' presence in the environment, in varying mixtures & amounts It's a combinatorial explosion we can never meaningfully test against. We do what we can, with the tools that we have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply) [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That wasn't a blocker with antidepressants, for better or worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* I wonder if thats because we know very little about how the brain actually works in regards to how the brain create thoughts. It's so very much a mystery in many ways where thoughts are created permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 1 month ago (1 child) Most medications are poorly understood (at best!) lol, it's trial and error all the way down. With some exceptions like the RNA messenger covid vaccine... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) it’s trial and error all the way down Oh God LD50 is the craziest thing ever. Here's how it works: Let's just assume dose-response is linear. So, go find what concentration of chemical X (medicine, food additive, cosmetic, whatever) kills 50% of the bacteria/rodent/etc population. Draw a line from there down to 0% dead at 0 concentration. Now decide what % of deaths is acceptable, given the benefit of chemical X. Use the line we just drew and that tells you what the regulations should set for max concentration under as-directed usage. This ignores facts like response curves are very often literally curves, sometimes with more than 1 minimum response curves (and lines!) often depend heavily on all sorts of other chemicals' presence in the environment, in varying mixtures & amounts It's a combinatorial explosion we can never meaningfully test against. We do what we can, with the tools that we have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] nymnympseudonym@piefed.social 2 points 1 month ago* (1 child) it’s trial and error all the way down Oh God LD50 is the craziest thing ever. Here's how it works: Let's just assume dose-response is linear. So, go find what concentration of chemical X (medicine, food additive, cosmetic, whatever) kills 50% of the bacteria/rodent/etc population. Draw a line from there down to 0% dead at 0 concentration. Now decide what % of deaths is acceptable, given the benefit of chemical X. Use the line we just drew and that tells you what the regulations should set for max concentration under as-directed usage. This ignores facts like response curves are very often literally curves, sometimes with more than 1 minimum response curves (and lines!) often depend heavily on all sorts of other chemicals' presence in the environment, in varying mixtures & amounts It's a combinatorial explosion we can never meaningfully test against. We do what we can, with the tools that we have. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) because after all these years the mechanism of action isn't properly understood. That wasn't a blocker with antidepressants, for better or worse. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* I wonder if thats because we know very little about how the brain actually works in regards to how the brain create thoughts. It's so very much a mystery in many ways where thoughts are created permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* I wonder if thats because we know very little about how the brain actually works in regards to how the brain create thoughts. It's so very much a mystery in many ways where thoughts are created permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Jarix@lemmy.world 1 point 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) Aspirin. Was a tincture or tea of white willow used as a folk medicine for generations until it got studied and the compound in it isolated by Bayer Cocaine. Indigenous population would chew coca leaves as a stimulant for various reasons and someone figured found out about it, studied it, and found out how to isolate the active compound and now we have Cocaine Opiates Opium Poppy was used for centuries for a variety of uses, but mostly recreational in the form of opium, then it got studied and turned into some of the most effective painkillers we have. (Morphine, codeine, heroin are naturally derived opium compounds, some others are synthetic or a blend such as oxycodone, methadone, fentanyl, carfentanyl) Edit: white birch bark(I'm not 100% certain this is the right tree, but it was a tree, please correct me if I'm wrong) found the correction in another comment permalink fedilink source parent
[–] njordomir@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago Well said. A balanced viewpoint that doesn't try to be all black and white. Even the stupidest bullshit can sometimes contain a kernel of truth. That doesn't mean the 99% bullshit isn't any less shit. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] ignotum@lemmy.world 4 points 1 month ago (1 child) The issue is that alternative forms of medicine are most often studied scientifically and either found to work (upgraded to medicine) but more often than not it is found to have no greater effect than placebo or random chance, but these alternatives continue to be practiced, meaning people end up getting ineffective care, and their money is funneled into an industry incentivised to discredit and spread distrust towards real proven medicine permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment load more comments (1 reply)
[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 10 points 1 month ago (1 child) George Carlin from the grave: By calling it an 'alternative' you are directly implying that it is not the actual thing. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homes@piefed.world 6 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I miss that guy. Can you even imagine what he would have had to say about the first Trump presidency, let alone the second? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago As for the second i'd imagine the quote "are 51% of you really that fucking stupid? Colollary: If so, how do i sell so many tickets?" The first is more interesting. He was no fan of the Clintons, but he would have torn the M.A.G.A. slogan to shreads so many ways. The nazi stuff would have tipped the scales in the end. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] homes@piefed.world 6 points 1 month ago* (1 child) I miss that guy. Can you even imagine what he would have had to say about the first Trump presidency, let alone the second? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago As for the second i'd imagine the quote "are 51% of you really that fucking stupid? Colollary: If so, how do i sell so many tickets?" The first is more interesting. He was no fan of the Clintons, but he would have torn the M.A.G.A. slogan to shreads so many ways. The nazi stuff would have tipped the scales in the end. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] postmateDumbass@lemmy.world 2 points 1 month ago As for the second i'd imagine the quote "are 51% of you really that fucking stupid? Colollary: If so, how do i sell so many tickets?" The first is more interesting. He was no fan of the Clintons, but he would have torn the M.A.G.A. slogan to shreads so many ways. The nazi stuff would have tipped the scales in the end. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] dillekant@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 month ago (1 child) It's not alternative medicine though? It's like regular medicine but instead of it being prescribed he just thought he'd ingest some based on his own whims. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] homes@piefed.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) You misunderstand I’m speaking of “medicine”, as in the practice thereof. You’re thinking of “medication“. That’s not what I’m talking about. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] homes@piefed.world 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) You misunderstand I’m speaking of “medicine”, as in the practice thereof. You’re thinking of “medication“. That’s not what I’m talking about. permalink fedilink source parent