The victory of rationality: the Council for Higher Education rejected a proposal of a subcommittee it established for academic recognition in complementary medicine

34 תגובות

1. "Will you give him legitimacy that he doesn't have?" What exactly is this assertion based on?
   After all, it is clear that the audience has its say. Today we hear all the time about sick people, especially with chronic diseases, who are forced to use drugs their whole lives and suffer from severe side effects and go straight to looking for solutions in natural medicine. Even the most skeptical of them. Not to mention those for whom medicine does not even know how to give them solutions and they simply suffer.

   However, I think that the prestige of conventional medicine is in its place. It is excellent for emergency situations, infectious diseases and situations that require a response here and now. Unfortunately, when it comes to chronic diseases and pain resulting from a poor lifestyle, medicine still has a long way to go.
   If a person suffers from muscle pain for that matter and goes to the doctor, then they give him painkillers, does anyone ask himself why this happened to him? What in his lifestyle causes those pains? Maybe he suffers from stress? Maybe he eats wrong? Suffering from sensitivities to certain foods?
   No one really asks the questions and tries to get to the root of the problem, but only treats the symptoms.
   Conventional medicine is not designed to cure chronic diseases such as diabetes, blood pressure and a host of metabolic diseases that are only increasing in number these days, it is simply designed to prolong them. prolong the disease.
   That is also good, but it actually does not really solve the problem from the root. And so it happens that people continue to eat the same (if not worse), continue to conduct their lives with a lot of stress without the support of vitamins that are damaged in these situations and conduct themselves normally. Which leaves them with medication for life and they even have to increase the dose many times. (I wonder who benefits from all this story..)

   There are many success stories in the field of natural medicine and I personally hear all the time about conventional doctors who go to naturopaths and various natural medicine therapists.
   It's not for nothing that there are more and more therapists in this field these days. Many are people who have experienced illnesses themselves and managed to cure them thanks to the tools of natural medicine.

   Natural medicine has amazing tools for healing, tools that even ordinary doctors have understood and many of them today combine what they know with these tools. And in my opinion, the integrative combination of natural and conventional medicine can do wonders for human health. If only they let it happen.
   An example that can be seen is that because there is currently no sufficient integration between natural and conventional medicine, doctors also do not know how to tell their patients that the medicine they are taking harms the production of various vitamins or enzymes (such as Q10 when taking statins).

   It is not for nothing that today there are groups with hundreds of thousands of people on social networks who only ask about natural treatments for various ailments.
   In the USA, Canada and many developed countries they have already understood the powerful tools of this medicine, where a naturopath is a doctor for everything.
   It's interesting that we copy a lot of things from the US, but not this one.
   There are probably very serious lobbyists with strong interests here who are comfortable leaving the situation as it is. A situation in my view is very dangerous and unhealthy for all of us. Hope people in the "Council for Higher Education" will wake up soon. before it's too late.

2. The fact is that complementary medicine has been around for thousands of years and with millions of satisfied people around the world. Of course it has to be formalized. But science is constantly looking for the disadvantages and not the advantages. Complementary medicine has been able to deal with common problems from treating minor pain to stroke rehabilitation. Problems that Western medicine has not been able to deal with adequately.

3. I think that alternative medicine is the result of experience and has tremendous successes and usually relies on the faith of the patient. In my opinion, many patients who were treated in clinics and tests were in good condition. But still not out of depression, they turned to alternative medicine. This is a mental matter. I think that alternative medicine requires control and monitoring because it is about human life.

4. I am not in favor of alternative medicine in general, but the placebo effect is significant, and contributes both mentally and medically (placebo), so it can be defined under psychology.
   I just wanted to get to the point that if there is sufficient knowledge in scope for a bachelor's degree in this subject, and if art has a bachelor's degree or psychology, then it is possible to understand the need for a degree in alternative medicine

5. Eddie:

   I want to draw your attention to the fact that what you perceive as "scientific" is not the main thing in this context. Using scientific terms can be nice, but that is not the main reason many people oppose the academicization of complementary medicine.

   The main reason is that every medical method has to prove itself experimentally according to certain standards, consistently. These standards require more than an intuitive feeling that the method works. For example, they require that the method be more successful than a placebo, so in every experiment a control group is required to receive placebo treatment. There are methods in complementary medicine that have indeed succeeded in a number of experiments, but since there is always the suspicion that the experiments were carried out by biased factors, each method is required to succeed in experiments consistently, that is, it has to succeed in many experiments carried out by different factors. Complementary medicine methods do not meet this requirement, because always alongside the successful experiments, which seek to conclude that the method works, there are also many failed experiments, which seek to conclude that the method does not work. In light of this, it is not possible to conclude with reasonable certainty that the methods work, and therefore they are not absorbed into conventional medicine.

   In other words, the "scientific" test I'm talking about is actually the result test. The methods in complementary medicine simply fail to prove themselves, and in order for me to be convinced that they do, they have to stand the tests that conventional medical methods stand up to, and they have to do so in a consistent and convincing manner, and it is not enough to arbitrarily intuitively determine that the methods work because people say so.

   Another problem with these methods, but probably less serious, is that most of them are not based on anything beyond intuition (eg graphology, which I know is not a medical method, but is an example I want to point out). That is, based on today's accepted scientific knowledge, there is no reason to believe that these methods work. It is clear that it is possible and desirable to expand the accepted scientific knowledge, but those who practice complementary medicine do not try or do not succeed in doing so, and therefore these methods remain unsupported. For example, there is no evidence of the existence of "chi", which Chinese medicine relies on as far as I know. Even worse, there are methods whose way of working (if they were to work) contradicts established scientific knowledge. For example, homeopathy contradicts the physics we know, and yet, the practitioners of homeopathy do not try or fail to expand physical knowledge so that non-contradiction is possible. Given such a contradiction, it is not surprising that homeopathy does not consistently succeed in trials.

6. Michael Rothschild:

   In my last words, I was not specifically referring to your words - I meant more to the opinions of others.
   It seems to me that in the contexts you talked about in your last response - we agree.

7. Eddie:
   In the response where I talked about "proven"/"unproven" I also explained what I mean and this is exactly what you call "working"/"not working" so your objection on this point is an opposing way of expressing agreement.
   In relation to your claim about scientific medicine, you are really wrong and demonstrate with your mistake exactly what I warned about to Luzzi: science accepts a claim as confirmed solely according to the experimental test. Understanding is important to move forward and create a theory that will give additional predictions, but science will never reject the results of an experiment.
   On the contrary - experiments are used to overthrow theories because they are stronger than them!
   Therefore, conventional medicine will accept - in the end - everything that works (and in fact will accept at every stage everything that the fact that it works has an experimental basis)

8. Dear Friends,

   I prefer to talk about 'working'/'not working' medicine rather than 'proven'/'unproven' medicine. It seems to me that this is the more appropriate frame of reference in the context of medicine - the main importance of which is being a useful practice, and not being the embodiment of a purely scientific 'truth'.

   Conventional medicine encompasses various practices that have been recognized, with varying degrees of effectiveness, as 'facts' in many fields.

   There are certain practices that are accepted in complementary medicine - that have proven and continue to prove themselves as 'facts'.

   There are areas where conventional medicine provides an effective solution, while complementary medicine does not, or only to a lesser extent.
   but! There are areas in which the practices of complementary medicine - giving better results than the corresponding practices in conventional medicine - are 'more effective', and sometimes much, much more, and only a stranger to the matter and the facts or a hopeless dogmatist will deny this.
   That is why they require study and training, and at a high level, and the higher the level of training of the therapist, the more the practice works.
   For this reason alone, there is a necessity to upgrade the investigation, understanding and teaching of complementary medicine to an academic level.

   The doubt about the 'scientific' nature of complementary medicine has nothing to undermine the introduction of complementary medicine into the academic framework, and in fact it is a not really relevant consideration, in the case in question. I will try to explain:

   The fundamental difference between the two medicines is that the assumption in conventional medicine is that these practices must be based on 'scientific insights' (- if not only on research results of studies conducted with scientific methodology-) and scientificity in this sense is part of the validity of this medicine.
   In contrast, the practices in complementary medicine do not seek recognition due to being 'proven' according to scientific insights; They have concepts and conceptualization systems and principles that to one degree or another differ from what is accepted in the relevant sciences (chemistry, physics, etc.), and therefore the ability of the accepted scientific insights to prove or disprove these practices, on a principled level - is limited, unless one chooses to deny the resulting reality and prefer Dismiss them in advance as ineffective and 'uncorrect' by virtue of being 'unscientific'.
   But this does not mean that this negates their claim (referring to the successful ones in practice) to the resulting healing effectiveness, that is to say that they are 'facts'.
   And no less importantly - this does not mean that they do not request and are required to face serious studies in the methodologies and standards accepted in the medical sciences. And this does not mean that they - and the pool - are deprived of the need and necessity to make therapists who are qualified at an academic level available to them.
   - and in this regard they should not be at a disadvantage compared to recognized academic fields - such as certain practices in psychology, or compared to teaching professions, law, etc., whose 'scientific insights' in relation to the 'world' are also not on the level accepted in the sciences of chemistry, physics, etc., But there is a general recognition of their necessity, and precisely as fields of knowledge at an academic level.

   Many people tend to accept the argument that as long as there is no 'scientific' research there is no reason for academic recognition, whereas after the aforementioned 'scientific' research there is nothing left to recognize academically, since from now on what is valid - has already been annexed to 'science' anyway , in this case to conventional medicine or conventional pharmacology. In light of the diagnoses I tried to make above - the above view has no basis. Those who advocate the above view are testifying that they have not descended into the nature of complementary medicine and are not aware of its details. I will demonstrate this precisely with regard to the field of herbal medicine, which is valued as a 'scientific' practice: apparently, as the 'scientific' research progresses - the practice will be absorbed into conventional medicine - this is what many believe. And it's not: everyone who knows and is familiar with this practice knows that its theoretical basis is indeed a lot of chemistry (and in the excellent courses - even quantum physics), but also insights that have no relation to the exact 'science' we know, and these insights are not among the least important in the field. Total absorption of this practice into conventional medicine - not possible. The situation is also similar with regard to other fields - such as holistic nutrition, and even more so in practices that use flower extracts and various diagnostic and treatment methods, such as AIPAC, iridology, kinesiology, etc.

   And all these practices 'work' very nicely, even without being completely understood at the accepted 'scientific' level!

   Is it not worth upgrading them in terms of status and research and training level - to academic standards - for the benefit of individual and general health?

9. Luci and Itzik:

   Obviously the meridian theory is wrong but that doesn't mean acupuncture doesn't work.
   It should be remembered that our belief in the correctness of a claim should be based first and foremost on the experiment.
   The statement that acupuncture does not work because there are no meridians is not a correct scientific statement and it plays into the hands of the science fools who often accuse the scientists of dismissing true things just because they do not know how to explain them.
   This is of course a wrong claim, but here and there the error in this claim should also be mentioned to the supporters of science.

   And as for the conclusions of the acupuncture experiments:
   As far as is known today, there are few situations in which this treatment helps and there are some in which it does not help.
   You can find an overview of the subject in Wikipedia
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acupuncture#Evidence-based_medicine

   This is not the text I was basing myself on when I first mentioned this but what is important is the conclusion.

10. The value of placebo in treating body and mind cannot be ignored. And for the added value it brings to pharmacological and other treatments that have a solid scientific basis and a known and proven course of action. (Even in the field of psychiatry, the effectiveness of drug treatment alone falls far short of drug treatment combined with psychotherapy, and there are quite a few studies done in this field).

    The choice is to ignore this and leave the placebo for "research purposes only" and its disposal in the hands of various charlatans and gummers. or use it as one of the tools available to the attending physician. A doctor applying acupuncture or giving his patient tap water and an hour of his time while being fully aware of his actions and limitations and not contaminated by the mysticism and pseudo science that usually accompany these procedures. A doctor who knows that a placebo is a placebo and knows how to refer his patients to the relevant specialists and to combine the practice in a complementary way with evidence-based medicine.

11. Luzzi, I can agree with what you wrote about homeopathy or acupuncture.
    But it would be foolish to underestimate herbal medicine. It is true that they moved well-known plants to the list of proven chemical remedies, but it is increasingly becoming clear that the herbal whole is greater than the sum of its parts. There is still a lot of missing knowledge about the plants we consume, not all of which Western medicine has analyzed in depth. Sometimes the lack of utilization of a plant for the benefit of medicine is simply because it is not economical enough.

    Take for example naturopathy,
    As soon as you learn in chemistry that the plants that do work we have already transferred to the list of "scientific" medicines, you will understand that there is nothing more to do with naturopathy.

12. Itzik:
    I actually happened to read about serious studies that confirmed Chinese acupuncture in several ways, but I won't look for them at the moment because I'm more interested in the principle than the details.
    On occasion I will check if I can find a link to the study I read and I would be happy if you would also provide a link to the one you read.

13. Michael:
    If I'm not mistaken, there is a study that exaggerates the effectiveness of acupuncture. They took two groups of people suffering from the same problem. One of them was injected with needles according to the Chinese method. The second group had needles inserted in random places. Both groups reported an identical improvement in their condition.

14. This whole question is funny.
    In the rest of the text I will use - for the sake of ease of writing - the word "proven" to describe the state of medicine that has received confirmation in an experiment.
    There are two types of medicine: proven medicine and unproven medicine.
    Interested people decided to give them other names such as traditional medicine and complementary/alternative medicine and the like.
    Many tools that are used today in proven medicine were unproven in the past.
    They simply tested them in a controlled manner on many people - they saw that they worked - and that's how their condition changed from unproven medicine to proven medicine.
    An example from the last few years is Chinese acupuncture, but in fact a very large part of the drugs of proven medicine went through this process (the other part mainly includes the newer drugs that, before entering the status of proven medicine - were not used as drugs at all. They were manufactured, tried, and after proving themselves were accepted ).

    Therefore - those who want to teach "complementary" medicine actually want to "teach" people things that are not known at all if they are true.
    What logic can there be in confirming the matter?
    If there is something that worked for Raul, then one of the two - either it really works and then it is possible, obviously, to prove that it works and put it in the framework of proven medicine - or it doesn't work and Raul recovered for a reason that is not relevant to the matter, and this will also be determined in the experiment.

    The unproven medicine is also divided, in fact, into two types:
    One type is medicine that has not yet been proven to work but the opposite has not yet been proven either.
    The second type is medicine that has already been proven not to work.

    Unfortunately, various therapists continue to give people treatments that have been proven not to work.

    To claim that I "heal" through complementary medicine is to claim that instead of medicine that has been proven to work, I prefer to use medicine that has not been proven to work. Doesn't that sound ridiculous? Would anyone have approached the practitioners of complementary medicine if they called themselves "healers using unproven medicine"?

    Avoiding the recognition of complementary medicine as an academic profession can only bring positive results because it will oblige those who want the medicine they believe in to be recognized as an academic profession - to prove that it works. What evil can grow from this?

    Medicine - complementary or not - is a collection of scientific theories because, unlike art - they make claims about the world.
    You should only study these claims if they are true. Learning claims that are not true can only be harmful.
    That's why you shouldn't draw an equal line between studying complementary medicine and studying music. Music has no claims on the world and certainly not those that can lead to the death of people.

15. To my father:
    The very topic of the discussion is very important.
    Although I personally do not have enough information to determine who is right, but surely the subject of whether complementary medicine is scientifically correct or incorrect is a subject that deserves to be brought to the science website and published studies done on the subject.
    I, like you, see no reason for homeopathic treatment (for example) to work. The question is whether it is possible to prove in research that homeopathy does not work, or whether it does. And why is there no absolute proof of this? If there are studies on the subject, I would be very happy to see them.
    As far as I remember there was once a "doctor" named Mesmer, who spread a method of treatment using magnets, a scientific committee in France proved that the whole method originated from the placebo effect and there is no truth in the method. (That was 200 years ago).
    On the other hand, if a certain type of complementary medicine works statistically, this is a basis for research that will try to explain why.

16. Just a year ago, an Israeli researcher working in Boston received the Ignobel Prize for his discovery that expensive placebo drugs work more effectively than cheap placebos.
    At first it sounds funny, but if you think about it, the research shows the importance of the patient's psychology in the success of the treatment. This is probably the reason for the success of many "alternative" treatments, from the idol doctors to the New Age charlatans.

17. river
    OK, I accepted and laughed. I admit that when discussing "alternative" "complementary" medicine, alternative, holistic, homeopathic, etc., I lose my sense of humor.

18. Amichai:

    really? It was sarcasm

19. river
    It is not great wisdom, that the precious water healed a leg that the doctors found nothing in it.
    It would be much more interesting if the water would heal a leg that the doctors do! They discovered a serious illness in her, and this without corresponding medical treatment.
    Please save us from rowers and believers who have personal experiential experience.

20. In the end, there is no drug as effective and tested as the placebo drug. I have known rational and serious people who, in the face of malignant cancer, began to believe in the worst of itzigenins, to spend the best of their money, and were also convinced of their proven usefulness. Such are human beings, and such will remain as long as science fails to solve all diseases.

    Which of course does not justify scientific recognition of idol medicines.

    By the way, the academic degree is not in art but in the study of art, a completely scientific field.

21. What you don't understand is that science has no problem investigating phenomena that work even if they have no explanation. So if acupuncture works the mechanism behind it should be investigated. Likewise the famous story of the "water memory" or cold fusion that was almost published in Nature until it was proven that they were not true. That's not the problem.
    The problem is to open a study track for students that will mainly study controversial phenomena. The day the mechanism is found or proven, believe me, it will be included in the medical curriculum, but until then, what is there to teach? First you have to investigate.

    Regarding Helicobacter. The fact that there was a surprising discovery and most researchers did not believe it at first (and for very good reasons based on the knowledge at the time) does not mean that every bizarre and far-fetched claim is automatically true. Beyond that, this story shows exactly the opposite claim. As soon as the existence of the bacterium and the fact that it causes the disease was proven, the researchers received an assessment that was expressed in a Nobel Prize, so how can one claim opacity? Should every claim be automatically accepted?

22. Alternative medicine [that is not rational] and the experts in it are idiots
    Psychologists are [rational] people with class and that is why they are listened to
    Although there are a lot of scientists who are afraid of psychology

    By the way, how the hell did you link art here
    It's pathetic
    Someone once even wrote here that there is poetry in sweets
    Trouble with everything

    By the way, about a year ago my leg hurt and the doctors found nothing
    But when I went to the rabbi he gave me water for $600 which was worth every cent
    Now tell me who you are to say that they will study Torah as a higher education

23. For my father, art does not pretend to be science. If you ask me about psychology, the discovery of the chemical drugs for conditions such as depression might quite make it redundant and turn it from a science to an alternative therapy, but that's just my personal opinion.

24. falcon,
    But today it is impossible to treat with a placebo.
    Placebo is for research purposes only. It is unethical to give a patient a drug that you know in advance is not really a drug and lie to him with a determined forehead that it is a drug.
    No one wants this kind of treatment from their doctor.
    The solution in my opinion is very simple:
    By law - not to allow selling a product and claiming that it does something without providing an explanation of how it works, and providing scientific proof that it works. The opposite of that is charlatanism.
    And an explanation of the mode of operation cannot be something that contradicts reality like say meridians.

25. I personally see no reason why it is not possible to specialize in "complementary medicine" aka "placebo medicine" as part of medical studies.
    Luzzi mentioned the subject of psychology here, as someone who studied a therapeutic field and deals with it. After all, I can testify that a large part of psychological treatment relies on the placebo effect and of the 400 theories that exist in the field and explain human development and the development of psychopathologies, only a relatively small minority and in specific situations can boast that it is indeed significantly more effective than other treatments and is empirically proven. This does not prevent educational institutions from continuing to teach Freud for historical reasons and from certain psychologists to publicly announce that their treatment methods are "outside of science" and cannot be subjected to empirical research.

    In an ideal world, placebo medicine would be part of every doctor's arsenal of tools. But in a reality where a family doctor spends 15 minutes per patient and the hospital staffs are overworked, other therapists may be required to do what the doctors do not have the time or awareness to do. Therapists who have undergone regular training and are well aware of what they are doing (treating placebos and not opening the flow of the fleet) and their limitations and can perfect the application of the placebo and increase its effectiveness through organized, self-aware scientific research in which the use of this or that mysticism is just one of many manipulations.

26. Hello everyone,

    I welcome the decisions of the Legislature - (1) not to recognize these professions as academic, and (2) to approve a bachelor's degree for therapists of the human body.
    At the same time, I agree with some of the commenters above - many professions are not science, yet are studied in academic institutions (and it's a good thing). It is also true that the decisions of the National Assembly are not free from various professional and personal interests.
    The decision is basically correct, but the explanations are not convincing.

    I believe that the Ministry of Health should require anyone who wants to practice complementary medicine to study the same bachelor's degree for those who care for the human body, in order to provide a minimal basis, and to prevent harm. The Ministry of Health must also supervise, and there is no fear that it will do that. Can you conjure up the Ministry of Health prosecuting a rabbi (who is not clear if he was ordained to the rabbinate, and who calls himself "acceptable") for giving treatment, or recommending against proven medical treatment?
    By the way, I don't see a difference between such a "rabbi" and intellectuals and alternatives like them that populate the morning programs of Channel 2.

    Happy holiday,
    Doo doo

27. Art is really not a science, but psychology certainly is.
    But when it comes to our health and our bodies it's all science. Scientifically measurable things happen in our body, diseases are something scientifically proven empirically. Therefore, everything related to our body should be scientifically tested.

    It is clear that you can do a degree not only in things that are not scientific, not in many, but there are.
    What can't be done is charlatanism and things that don't work.
    Or as written in the article, once people understand with a degree in complementary medicine how the human body works there will be nothing left of complementary medicine to teach.

    Take acupuncture for example,
    Once you learn anatomy and realize that there are no meridians in the body, what will you do with acupuncture?

    Take homeopathy for example,
    Once you learn chemistry and realize that water cannot retain information of what was in it, what will you do with homeopathy.

    Take for example naturopathy,
    As soon as you learn in chemistry that the plants that do work we have already transferred to the list of "scientific" medicines, you will understand that there is nothing more to do with naturopathy.

    Did you all understand that?

28. Is art a science?
    psychology?
    I didn't know that it was possible to get a degree only in things with a scientific basis...

29. Order of scientific observation

    Many years ago everyone told me
    that talking to myself is not a wise matter
    So I listened to them and did as they did
    Shavei will not accidentally stick some defect

    Later I grew into a cell phone generation
    With a personal speakerphone in a particular style
    I often heard pantomime here on the street
    New free folk art

    This is the raised hand
    A spark that shines
    Fist in the air
    the hard torso
    the tear
    flame
    yell
    Just chatter
    exposed nerves
    like looking

    Here's how I'll teach you how to walk
    that our world is a stage of relationships
    The comfort of the many is a fool's affliction
    And we are
    we are crazy

    post Scriptum

    All speaking in person
    Welcome to my private room
    I'm lying here on a couch wondering
    Writes to a lamp and speaks to a drawer.
    Alternative Medicine

30. Mr. Bilozovsky, who determines what is rational and what is not? In my humble opinion you should have added "in my humble opinion".

31. Lalyron, we can agree with your criticism about the nature of the title that it is indeed biased, but note that your example only proves the rationality. Scientists rejected a conclusion because of prejudice - that is irrationality - but in the final reckoning, rational scientific research proved the opposite and a minority opinion was accepted despite the prejudice. True, the procedure was slow (depending on who you ask) but in the end, rationality prevailed and the truth about the causes of ulcers came out, despite the prejudices. The criticism of anyone who opposes alternative medicine to the issue is just this: 'Be brave and put your method to the test of criticism' They don't do that. Neither homeopathy nor reflexology nor many charlatan approaches are bravely willing to test their methods. I assure you that if there were unequivocal empirical studies of their successes, no politics and no prejudices would stop the truth and those disciplines would flourish as a legitimate branch of science - even then, it would be the triumph of rationality.

32. To my father Blizovsky,
    The title shows your opinion, and prejudices, this is not the victory of rationality but only a political victory, I recommend you to change the title, complementary medicine is proven to be helpful in many cases and the most rational thing is for a person to choose the treatment that benefits him and it doesn't matter to which school of treatment the treatment belongs.

    Do yourself and the readers a favor and stop being narrow minded

    Maybe you think you represent the sect of scientists puffed up with self-importance but as a scientist and philosopher I tell you that history has proven the nullity of those who are confident in their theories.

    Example of prejudice:
    In the 80s there were two Australian researchers who hypothesized that ulcers were caused by a bacterium called Helicobacter pylori, of course all the sages of the sect ignored them and did not agree to publish their articles, twenty-three years later they received the Nobel Prize for Medicine.

    Wikipedia quote:
    .
    Prof. Marshall (Medicine and Pharmacology) completed his first degree at the University of Western Australia in 1974. He met Robin Verne, a physiologist interested in gastritis, during internal medicine training at Perth Royal Hospital in 1981. Together, the two investigated the presence of helical bacteria in gastritis patients. The following year (1982), they succeeded in growing the initial culture of ־H. pylori and developed their hypothesis linking the bacterium to ulcers and stomach cancer.

    Quote from Wikipedia

    The H theory. pylori was ridiculed by the establishment scientists and doctors, who did not believe that a bacterium could live in the acidic environment of the stomach. To force humans to pay attention to the theory, Marshall drank a test tube full of bacteria and immediately began to develop symptoms of the disease, which was treated with antibiotics. In 1984 he was awarded a research grant named after Robert Koch and continued to research the H. pylori and gastritis and became a researcher at the University of Virginia in the United States. He returned to Australia in 1997, and headed a chair named after Brent at the University of Western Australia between 2003-1998.

    In 2005, the Swedish Academy of Sciences awarded him and his colleague Prof. Vern the Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for "their discovery of the bacterium H. pylori, and its role in gastric ulcer and gastritis diseases". Prof. Marshall continues H. pylori research and is director of the molecular biology laboratory at the University of Western Australia.

    On October 3, 2005, the Nobel Prize Committee for Physiology and Medicine announced that this year's prize was awarded to two Australian researchers, Barry Marshall and Robin Warren, for discovering a bacterium that causes stomach inflammations. The Nobel Prize committee said that in 1982 the two discovered the "important and unexpected finding", according to which stomach inflammations are caused by the bacterium Helicobacter pylori. Infection probably occurs at a very young age and the bacterium remains in the stomach for life, and in most people it does not cause any symptoms. However, it may encourage the creation of a stomach ulcer in 10%-15% of those infected. The ulcer is caused by the bacterium H. pylori encouraging the creation of acidic products in the stomach, and this leads to damage to the stomach and the inner lining of the intestines. The bacteria that the scientists discovered causes more than 90% of duodenal ulcers and 80% of stomach ulcers. About two-thirds of the world's population is infected with the bacterium, but most do not suffer from any symptoms. However, the bacterium may lead to the development of stomach cancer, which is the second deadliest cancer.

    I hate the corrupt establishment

33. It is sad to say this, but the decision of the MLA does not demonstrate sound judgment. The opinion is completely self-interested - and the forces coming from the university establishments are responsible for it, who have chosen to overthrow an entire field (complementary medicine, as opposed to 'alternative') mainly because this child will not be born to them, and also because of progressive brain and functional stagnation that the MLA suffers from.

    There are many studies that unambiguously indicate that nutrition in its more holistic format is more effective, in many cases, than the diet that flaunts its 'clinical' academic glory (and the controversy surrounding milk, which began with insights into holistic nutrition, and the abundance of research it has entailed - is just one demonstration of the issue).
    There are many studies that prove the unequivocal effectiveness of herbal medicine in its modern edition, as it develops within the framework of complementary medicine, and its priority, in many cases, over the solutions offered by conventional medicine and the pharmacology of synthetic substances.
    There is a very respectable therapeutic practice in various fields of complementary medicine (for example, diagnosis and neutralization of allergies using the AIPAC method) that do not yet have scientific research as their basis, but they prove themselves at the therapeutic level to be excellent, much better than what conventional medicine is able to offer in those fields.
    Today there are quite a few conventional doctors who are getting to know the methods of complementary medicine, and who use them in practice - because they 'work'. The attempt to accuse them of self-interest (along the lines of 'there are patients who are tempted by complementary medicine and you can make a lot of money from it') is simply despicable and insulting. I also know conventional doctors who are aware of the short-handedness of the professional hand of conventional medicine in certain areas - and they send their suffering patients to relevant experts in complementary medicine practices, in order to find them the longed-for balm. Some do it in the first place... and they are happy to hear later about the results. And the voice of a crowd like the voice of a demon.

    All the practices (the successful ones) of complementary medicine yearn for exactly this - for study and scientific research in an academic framework - to promote them and eventually integrate them, according to the extent of their success in fact - in a more integrated and improved corpus of more useful and advanced medicine, and to raise the level and quality of the health of humanity.
    These practices also need a highly professional and licensed array of therapists, in order to prevent the infiltration of charlatans of all kinds - and the importance of academicizing the field is extremely significant in this context.

    It is a great shame that in its decision - which was made against the opinion of an expert committee that is not professional - eliminated these blessed moves.

    Pretending to belittle the unfortunate decision of the MLA as not 'scientific' reflects not only self-interest, but also ignorance, primitiveness, dogmatism, alienation and severe moral scientific degeneration and a disregard for the good of the public in general and of the patient population in particular.

    At this stage, one should say about complementary medicine - 'And yet we move on'. And maybe it's better this way: if the MLA's decision is a demonstration of honesty and academic professionalism - it's better that complementary medicine develops without this institutional nonsense.

    In this context, one cannot help but wonder about the title of the article, and its closing sentence. I don't know who came up with them, but they don't teach about orientation in matter. Most of all they teach about so-called 'enlightened' prejudices and fashions (woe to that concept of superficial, dogmatic, technical and distorted 'rationality' demonstrated here).

    I would like to point out that I am familiar with the field of complementary medicine (from the angle of business entrepreneurship and on certain occasions also as a patient), but for several years I have not been an interested party in the field, and I am only presenting my personal opinion.

34. Tell him:

    My back seized up a year ago, I couldn't move for a week, then I went to a back treatment specialist using a method called manual therapy, the man is an adult with 30-40 years of experience, after 20 minutes, 80% of the movement in my neck returned, and the next day everything was gone, since then I sent Everyone I know him and they all came back and said that he is an amazing person and that he is a magician.

    So does it work or not?
    believe or not
    Aalek academics, half of the things taught today are not true at all, including entire theories in the social and natural sciences that change every 25 years.

    So there are charlatans, so what, all the pharmaceutical companies sell you health? It's all symptomatic treatment, show me one chemical drug that cures a disease and not a symptom except antibiotics???

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.