Frank:
I'm afraid you fail to see my point. If some are receiving benefits from alternative medicine and some are not, I see no reason to speak negatively against it. Some die after receiving medical treatment in hospitals. Should we speak negatively of the medical profession on that basis? Again I say, I'm seeking only a bit of fairness here.
I do see your point, but as someone who has experienced both types of 'medicine' and knowing of another who refused conventional treatment and died and whose widow was adamant I should take the conventional route (though I refused at the time as I was still trying many alternative therapies) I should say there is reason to speak negatively about it from my experience - but I also hasten to add that I, too, believe in fairness and sacked my first doctor after he refused to consider my alternative desires and also had more than one row with a professor at the cancer hospital for the same reason (though we have since made up and he it was who got me in remission). You see, I didn't and don't take things lightly and there is a matter of principle.
Me: I believe there is a case for using both simultaneously).
You: That happens to be my point of view as well.
My reasons may not be the same as yours as they concern the mind (see below).
Me: This doesn't mean the alternatives worked - but it could prove the power of the mind and body.
You: If you really believe that, you have to be a bit naïve. To suggest that persons like my mother-in-law experienced cancer and its cure only in their minds is a bit off the wall, don't you think?
I never suggested any such thing! I'm talking about those who have successfully tried, for example, visualisation to overcome disease. This has had success in some cases - it didn't work for me, but I wouldn't rule it out. For visualisation one needs to use the mind, obviously, to concentrate on healing the disease. I know of a terminal ill woman who was successful using this method - but she is in a vast minority (she previously had chemo). Another case of mind over disease is the well documented case of Ian Gawler, an Australian who literally had just weeks to live but defeated his cancer through hours of meditation. He has been cancer free for around 30 years now and runs the Gawler Foundation in Australia (I'm on it's e-mail mailing list). Interestingly, many (most?) survivors in Australia who used Gawler's meditation methods also used conventional medicine, including chemotherapy. Gawler could reach immense depths of meditation and it worked for him. Others, like me, haven't been able to reach such depths!
I've concluded that "empirical evidence" is simply a catch phrase employed by those who swallow hook, line and sinker the message of the drug companies and the medical profession. Their idea of "empirical" is anything that agrees with their own line of thinking. A true empirical investigation draws upon diverse research methods. A cancer treatment study is not empirical if it ignores the findings of doctors in the field of alternative medicine.
Frank,
Believe me I have a vast array of books here on cancer treatments and how such and such a method can save one's life. I seemed to be doing well on my alternative methods for around 18 months - then it all fell apart! I like the sensibleness of the likes of Dr. David Simon, M.D., Medical Director of the Chopra Center for Well Being, whose book, Return to Wholeness, highlights the importance of conventional medicine but that holistic medicine should be used alongside it. As I said, I don't have a problem with that - but Dr. Simon emphasises the importance of using the likes of chemotherapy and not using holistic medicines on their own! I have been thoroughly reading the likes of Jim Beddard, The Healing Power of Zen, who went through virtually what I have to go through. The treatment is horrendous, but (at this point) it's my only chance! My disease has never been known to have been healed by alternative methods alone. Like me, a doctor of psychology tried it but has since had to take some chemotherapy.
Without empirical evidence we have no real proof, no real yardstick, from which to argue our corner. It reminds me of when I was a JW and we took everything we were told for granted (and/or "left it with Jehovah"). Now, I read some ancient bible history, including Finklestein and Silberman's tremendous archaelogical work The Bible Unearthed which shows how erronious the Hebrew Scriptures are. The same with science (evolution) over creation. Science can give genuine empirical evidence. In my case such evidence is used regarding the efficacy of drugs tested for my condition, including who conducted the study, where it was held, how many patients were involved and how each one faired. Alternative therapies, as far as I know, have never been subjected to such vigorous testing (please let me know if you know any that have and their results). I DO know that, here in England, homeopathic treatments were subjected to severe scientific testing and the results were they are nothing more than placebos! But they still have their place as (some) patients actually benefit because they think the remedies are doing them good. This is another case of the power of the mind. Homeopathy did nothing for me.
I don't believe either side has all the answers. I'd just like to see more cooperation from both sides. My experience tells me that it's the medical profession that needs to do more bending, and I'm happy to see that in recent years more and more doctors are including alternative medicine in their artillery of treatments.
I really, really wish I could say that all the money I spent on alternative medicines/therapies worked for me - but they didn't. Co-operation? I'm all for that, but at the end of the day it is conventional medicine that will produce the major cures (interestingly my doctor is Chinese, but won't have anything to do with Chinese medicine (something I tried). He is completely western medicine oriented).
With all my heart I wish you well, Dansk, and I'm hopeful. You can count on it that I, for one among many, will continue to keep you in my prayers.
And with all MY heart I am profoundly grateful. I am about to embark on a treatment that, as I have mentioned, is quite horrendous and not without risk. I have no choice. The professor told me I'm running out of options. In other words, I'll die if I don't and could die if I do. Fortunately, I am positive and intend to post here until the site ceases
Ian
