Comments on: Toward Real Alternatives

By: EP

EP — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 04:37:02 +0000

Steve,
I like your reasoning, and I agree with you to a certain extent. But there are ethical problems associated giving research subjects a substance that you know can harm them. If a medical study has any reason to believe that the substance being tested is harmful to the subjects, even in the middle of a trial, the researchers have to cancel the study. I don’t think any university IRB would approve a study that involved giving subjects a substance that had already been proven to be dangerous to find out exactly how much of that substance was required to do damage.

By: Jordan Green

Jordan Green — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 02:30:15 +0000

Annie, your response doesn’t sound at all hysterical at all. It sounds well-reasoned, thoughtful, and based in reality.

Unfortunately, much of what is being portrayed as the anti-health care movement in the press HAS been hysterical and unreasoned (“It’s socialism!” is not a reasoned argument).

Now whether that’s media bias or simply a ploy to get ratings, I don’t know, but I agree: the opposition to health care’s legit thoughts have been drowned out by a very loud fringe. The problem is, the fringe still exists, and somehow they’re getting their message out more effectively.

By: annie

annie — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:49:27 +0000

Ryan, it stands up to reasoning. (And, standing up to reasoning has nothing to do with the definition of hysterical. Rather, it has to do with the emotional state of the person stating the opinion. A person can be totally right, and still be “hysterical”.) People just disagree with you. That doesn’t make them hysterical. I could argue that an urgent push for universal healthcare is a hysterical reaction to skewed statistics and a society based on entitlement. I won’t, partially because I do listen to the argument, and partially because I give people who disagree with the benefit of the doubt.

So then, having rejected the erroneous premise of your definitions, you are left saying that anyone who holds such a belief must do so because they are not reasonable and are close-minded. It disallows that, in fact, reasonable people may just think you are wrong (and ignores that you have put forth your opinion as not only fact, but the basis on which other concerns and opinions should be judged.) That is a convenient way to avoid actually having to engage the fundamental problem in communication, which James tried to draw out.

Honest maybe, but I believe incorrect, and doesn’t read to me as very humble at all.

By: Jennifer

Jennifer — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:11:29 +0000

At first read I thought “GREAT IDEA!” and then upon further thought…in many, many cases we don’t need the “research”. Homeopathic remedies and natural supplements have been used for CENTURIES-MUCH longer than today’s drugs-and have been proved effective. I could write a book on my experiences…in short, I almost died before giving birth, due to an extremely toxic liver after 20 years on standard medical drugs used to control my asthma and allergies. After that harrowing experience, I quit going to an MD, stopped my daily drugs, and switched to alternative healthcare and supplements. I’ve been pharma-drug free for 7 years and have never been healthier.
I think it is more a case of educating people than funding more research. Most of my church family looks at me like I have two heads and think I’m into “that New Age” stuff when I suggest natural methods for health, as opposed to believing that their MD is infallible. I’m not knocking doctors-I know there are some incredible MDs out there! But I have also come to realize that God gave us cures…that are right under our feet, instead of coming from a lab.
All that to say I’m very happy that you addressed this issue!!

By: Steve

Steve — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:09:15 +0000

First, I was advocating FUNDING by a church, not a clinical trial on itself. Yeah, that would be really bad science. As for the liver problem, I thought I addressed that. HUNDREDS of drugs available OTC and by Rx cause liver damage in large doses or when combined with other substances. The european studies demonstrate that kava is no different. And I’m not advocating wholesale approval, I’m advocating solid, unbiased research to find out exactly what the side effects are. You can buy Kava, like thousands of other homeopathic remedies, now. I’m saying they should be researched so we know what works, what doesn’t, and what’s dangerous. The drug companies normally fund such research, but they have no stake in researching something they can’t patent.

By: Ryan Jones

Ryan Jones — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:52:39 +0000

A belief is only valid when it stands up to objective reasoning. The recent concerns about euthanasia and socialism in the healthcare debate are not reasonable. They are purely emotional “hysterics” with very little if any basis in the reality of the current debate. When people encounter such a belief and totally put reasoning on hold by closing their minds to the argument it can then be honestly and humbly called hysterical.

By: Ryan Jones

Ryan Jones — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:49:43 +0000

There are many dangerous drugs that are FDA approved that could cause organ failure when combined with other drugs. The article even goes so far as to explain the fact that the people who suffered liver failure were mixing the Kava with alcohol or taking the wrong portions of the plant.

By: Jim

Jim — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:47:09 +0000

I like the idea, of at least thinking where would the church be best to put its money – wouldn’t we be doing much better at taking care of people by putting money toward research on health issues over spending money on delivering power point presentations and other slick advertising.

Great thought.

By: Kathleen

Kathleen — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 13:47:17 +0000

I think it’s great that you’re thinking about things like this. I don’t know a thing about medicine or funding or research beyond the most superficial level (plus I’m Canadian), but I do agree that it’s worthwhile to consider new and different ways that we as a church can serve the world. Why not through medical research? I for one really appreciated this article. What a fresh and innovative idea.

(Also: I’m not sure you were suggesting that denominations test on themselves, as Sarah seems to believe).

By: sarah

sarah — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 08:44:44 +0000

it’s an interesting thought. thanks for taking the time to articulate your argument.

but it seems flawed on several levels. the first is that if a denomination performed a clinical trial on itself, it would be an extremely biased sample group, and wouldn’t come close to meeting the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, which is a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. even if you finished the study, it wouldn’t accomplish anything because the results would be so skewed, they would not apply to the general population.

why spend time, energy and resources on a study that wouldn’t hold up to scrutiny? aren’t there more pressing issues for the church to address than testing a specific herbal remedy?

and lastly, it’s concerning when you advocate a supplement that’s been recalled by the FDA – it was recalled for a reason. putting people into liver failure, which leads to death or a liver transplant, is a hefty price to pay for expressing an unsubstantiated opinion.