Home Remedies vs Medicine

[vegeta rocker]

I read this and couldn't believe this person hasnt been fired.

[URL=http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-health19sep19,1,1022414.story?coll=la-headlines-world]Article[/URL]

The top health official in africa is nuts and the president won't fire her.

What do you think about the top health official using home remedies to treat AIDS instead of proper medication?

I think it is ridiculous especially since they are not proving effective at all.

[Fyxe]

[size=1][color=slategray]It's not like there is much anyone can do about AIDS... so, both treatments are probably just about as effective as the other. Yet, I cannot say that with full confidence, considering I am no doctor.

Home remedies usually do prove to be much more worth the time than medicine, in my history. Medicine usually makes me feel worse in a lot of situations. The only two things that ever truly help me are Pepto Bismal and pain killers. And I'm grateful to have pain killers, because I suffer from migraines all of the time.
Otherwise, I usually come up with my own ways to cure myself/make myself feel better.

Who says home remedies cannot be efficient, too? The natural way is actually better for you.[/color][/size]

[John]

[quote name='Bláse][size=1][color=slategray]Who says home remedies cannot be efficient, too? The natural way is actually better for you.[/color'][/size][/quote] False. If deriving medical uses directly from plants via an almost trial-and-error process of estimation were better for you than, say, legions of trained medical professionals devoting their lives to pinpointing the exact causes, down to the cell parts, of an affliction, then I feel pretty comfortable that most governments wouldn't hesitate much in revoking those scientists' multi-million dollar budgets.

I'm sure there's a few natural alternatives that work just as well or better than their popular medicine counterparts, but that doesn't hold up against the fact that the latter have been exhaustively proven safer and more effective than the former.

[vegeta rocker]

Im not saying home remedies are bad, im hispanic and i have used tons lol.

but to choose garlic and onion over antibiotics over the PROTESTS of the patient is unethical.

I think that this person is a murderer.

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

Dear God, beets and sweet-potatoes ? This woman shouldn't just be fired, she should be tried and imprisoned for mass murder. I mean it's sickening, this woman is in a position of trust for millions of people, and abusing that trust to push some homeopathic agenda which will not work without many, many miracles.

Personally I think "home-remedies" and "natural cures" should be used only in the event your doctor tells you that they might be better than the drugs he could prescribe because there is the same chance of success and less side effects. Of course this should only be in the cases of minor illnesses, nothing above a cold should ever be treated without properly tested and licensed medicines. [/SIZE]

[Delta]

[COLOR=#038000]Beetroot+garlic+lemon+sweet potato:
It's not for treatment of AIDS.
[b]It kills sex drive.[/b]
[i]Durrr~[/i]

[SIZE=1][COLOR=#656446]On a side note: An infusion of avocado leaves works wonders a digestive system beset with loose bowel movement. I guarantee it.[/COLOR][/SIZE][/COLOR]

[AzureWolf]

[QUOTE=John]False. If deriving medical uses directly from plants via an almost trial-and-error process of estimation were better for you than, say, legions of trained medical professionals devoting their lives to pinpointing the exact causes, down to the cell parts, of an affliction, then I feel pretty comfortable that most governments wouldn't hesitate much in revoking those scientists' multi-million dollar budgets.

I'm sure there's a few natural alternatives that work just as well or better than their popular medicine counterparts, but that doesn't hold up against the fact that the latter have been exhaustively proven safer and more effective than the former.[/QUOTE][COLOR=maroon]That's just the problem, though. The reason popular medicine counterparts have been *exhaustiviely* proven is because there's money for research. You have to realize that pharmaceutical drug reasearch is an area that is funded in the US by over 75% private sectors (that means groups/companies who have interest/bias - usually people who can make money off the drug being tested). If an off-the-garden alternative was proven just as effective, that's not really something they are interested in putting money into.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that alternative medicine is as good as what we have now, or that it's even a replacement. Rather, I'm saying that the conundrum we are in is that there's no incentive for people to invest in research to prove the effectiveness of - say - ginseng because you can get that from anyone-anywhere. Things that are naturally found in nature - like ginseng - are not patentable, and so once it's found to be great for whatever the hell it's claimed to be great for, then no one company can capitalize on it. Of course, now synthesized drugs (or *a way to synthesize* a natural product) can be patented.

As more and more Eastern influence is hitting the US, though, alternative medicine seems to become more and more viable. For example, it's only recently since the NIH has officially acknowledged acupuncture therapy as a medical technique.

I'm not going to condemn the woman because there's no cure for AIDS and there might be a good reason she's sticking to home remedies?[/COLOR]