The Dangers of Alternative Health: 3 Treatments That Can Cause Some Serious Damage

Source: Rangbaz

Alternative medicine, or folk medicine, has reemerged in recent years as an actual substitute for concrete medical science.  It's a concerning fad, since most people simply don't do the research required to filter out the dangerous and ineffective treatments from the ones that have shown real benefits in clinical trials.  And they give up or postpone conventional treatment in favor of some of these.  A decision like that should never be made light of, or insulted, because it can come equipped with a lot of emotional baggage, and involves the quality of life or survival of the person making it.

The real problem lies in the overall state of health education in America.  Healthcare is one of the most politically-charged subjects there is nowadays, and it can be hard to sift through the rhetoric to get to the truth.  But it's not impossible.  A lot of the responsibility lies on the patient to be his or her own advocate, doing the research and coming to the best conclusion about proceeding with treatment.  It's on the government, the media, and big business to create an ethical, consistent, and efficient model for educating and distributing accurate information about healthcare going forward.  I'm not holding my breath though, and for that reason, I highly suggest that if there's a treatment you've heard about, or are looking into, that you please find the actual clinical trials or research surrounding that particular item and uncover the recorded outcomes and weigh them against other treatment options, before you buy into any alternative treatment.

President Barrack Obama's signature on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
Source: US Federal Government

What, specifically, does "alternative medicine" entail?  For starters, anything that isn't medicine.  Because, "If alternative medicine worked, it would be called medicine."  I'll run through two of the fads I've come across recently and provide the actual scientific evidence to refute them.

Here we go:

1.) Coffee Enemas.

Because, if you have cancer, everyone knows the best tool you can possibly use to treat your illness isn't conventional, peer-reviewed, FDA approved medical science, it's sticking coffee into your rectum.  When I was going through treatment, I don't know how I missed this amazing miracle cure.  It's possible that I overlooked it because it doesn't work, and it isn't medicine, and it isn't science.  Maybe.

Just stick that hose where the sun don't shine.
Source: Rocket Packs Coffee Dispenser

Coffee Enemas are said to relieve toxicity in your bowels left from all the random toxins that cling to your large intestines throughout your life, left by the foods that you eat.  First off, digestion occurs in your small intestine.  So umm... what?  Any toxin-releasing chemical reactions are over by the time your large intestine gets involved.  Nice try, though.  Oh, but the toxins get caught in your liver, because it's not a highly evolved toxin-filtering biological machine or anything like that (it is, actually), so the caffeine penetrates all the way to the liver and draws out the toxins there.  Okay, so maybe just check your liver enzymes the next time you're at your PCP, and if they're out of whack, why not try the regular stuff like refining your dietary intake first, before you shoot hot coffee into your bum?  Or if they aren't out of whack, maybe don't let some random quack convince you that you're sick because you have "toxins" in your body?

For some reason, this God-awful treatment is back by popular demand.  It seems that some sort of colon therapy has been in use since at least Ancient Egypt (which should already be a red flag).  Coffee Enemas in particular have been in use since the early twentieth century, gaining in popularity until mainstream science decided to research the effectiveness of the treatment, and found it not only ineffective, but dangerous.  In recent years, the treatment is gaining steam, however ineffective and dangerous it may be.  Coffee Enemas cause death and infections related to (ironically) introducing toxins into the body (yay!), as well as complications from damage to the intestinal walls.  Not only that, there is no official certification procedure for this garbage, so anyone can do it.  And if they don't understand how to clean the equipment properly... well, now you have someone else's coffee-flavored poop in your body.  And you thought you were getting rid of toxins.

For further reading on Colon Therapy and Coffee Enemas, you can find an explanation from the American Cancer Society, here.  Or, why not read the Wikipedia article?

2.) Gerson Therapy:

Some dude moved to Mexico in order to legally sell you a complicated series of therapeutic nonsense involving (what else?) Coffee Enemas.  And juice.  There's apparently a regimen of juices.  I hope they don't also go in your rectum.  All this for the low, low, snake oil price of $6,000 a week. Curing cancer never looked so easy.

Yep, that looks about right.

So what's the problem with this one, aside from the aforementioned Arabica-style colon cleanse?  The fact that it doesn't work, either?  That's a start, but let's break it down.  Gerson Therapy also irrationally revolves around the theory that diseases are caused by toxins in the body.  The addition here is the nutritional aspect: a strict regimen of fresh juices and supplements, force-fed at hourly intervals.  Similarly, there is no documented evidence that any of this provides any medicinal value at all.  In fact, studies have shown that the dangers outweigh the results -- and since the results are nonexistent, it isn't that tough to outweigh them.  Gerson patients can be poisoned by some of the supplements, and run into the same dangers from the Coffee Enemas.

For more information on Gerson Therapy, read this explanation from the American Cancer Society.  Highlights include:

"The National Cancer Institute and New York County Medical Society examined records of his patients and found no evidence that the method was effective against cancer."

"Relying on this treatment alone and avoiding or delaying conventional medical care for cancer may have serious health consequences."

3.) Detox Treatments.

The only benefits ever recorded from detox treatments are anecdotal.  They include, increased energy and higher cognitive functioning.  Most rational nutritionists ascribe these benefits to the fact that detox diets require the detoxer to stop eating foods high in fat or preservative content that they shouldn't have been eating in the first place.  The simple act of removing processed or junk foods from the diet has made them feel healthier.  I can vouch for this, myself.  After converting to vegetarianism, I've been trying hard to avoid processed foods and ingredient lists with things I can't pronounce.  This has made me feel better, whether the effects are real, or psychosomatic.  As with all alternative health treatments, the placebo effect applies.

The main argument for the continued use of detox treatments is the removal of toxins from the body.  Here's an anatomy lesson -- your body removes toxins from your body.  Seriously, it does.  You are an organic machine with over three million years of ancestry.  If there are are toxins and imbalances in your body, you'll filter them out.

Detoxing can be a dangerous treatment, as it removes vital nutrients from your body while restricting your dietary intake.  Signs of malnutrition include fatigue, loss of appetite, poor wound healing, fatty liver, hypotension, loss of reflexes, impaired memory, and more.  It can lead to all kinds of terrible metabolic and genetic malfunctions if it isn't fixed.  It's best to consult your doctor before you try something like this, and even better not to try it at all.

For more information on detox diets, check out this piece from Science Daily.

For more on nutritional research and cancer, read this article from Reuters: "Treat nutrition and cancer research cautiously: study."

All of these therapies involve the assumption that cancer and other illnesses are somehow connected to increased amounts of mysterious "toxins" in the body.  There are other related treatments that make the same claim and also have no clinical evidence to back up their effectiveness, nor do they attest to the accuracy of the founding hypothesis (antioxidant, garlic, red wine, tea, vitamin D).  The truth is, we are complex, evolutionary creatures of wonder, who have developed vast regulatory systems to avoid just such a buildup of these toxins, whatever their particular makeup.  The kidneys and liver filter out any such substances that could negatively impact your health, and they've done this your whole life, free of charge.  If you'd like to read about a real disorder involving actual toxic infections related to bacteria, perhaps research Sepsis.  If you'd like to read an additional explanation of the lack of evidence related to toxins and detox treatments, here's a great one from the Mayo Clinic.

Put simply, detoxing will not cure your chronic illness.  It will be cured when we understand the genetic or epigenetic cause, and can reverse the mechanisms that enabled it.  Please don't pass on conventional medical science in favor of poop coffee, or any other ridiculous treatment.  Or at least do a quick Google search beforehand.

"Natural" Healing, "Alternative" Medicine

I'm getting increasingly tired of the number of "Natural" and "Alternative" health accounts I've accidentally followed on Twitter.  You guys are crafty.  You do your best not to look crazy right away, and present yourselves in a medically authoritative way.  Seems like that's working for you.  But then I start to see the kind of articles you post, and I realize I've been taken in.  You post things on Twitter with titles like: "(Rare bit of foliage) will make every aspect of your life better!" or, "Now, rub potato skin on your genitals to make women want you!" and, "XYZ will treat cancer, heart disease, diabetes, MS, lupus, the common cold, stretch marks, a stubbed toe, pinkeye, indigestion, testicular chafing, and having no one in your life who loves you."

Or, my favorite: "A new study has shown that mainstream medicine is a conspiracy, and the only substance of any actual medicinal value is a smoothie made with sloth toenails."  Just what studies you pull from, the world will never know, because you never, ever, cite them.  And when you do, they're not in English, and are written by people who are not medical professionals.  In the last article I read, the author actually thought it appropriate to cite "anecdotal evidence" as source material.  As in, "So-and-so said he felt much better after taking the pills made of dragon spines, and everyone in his life noticed how happy he appeared at the pancake breakfasts.  He is still very much dead, but the dragon spine pills totally work.  Please buy them."

I keep following you until I get just disgusted enough to leave your nonsense behind.  Because I truly believe that it's better to be aware that you're out there, spreading fear-mongering sensationalism to line your pockets, so the intelligent human beings among us can be prepared to deal with you.  Even so, after about halfway through most articles, I click "unfollow" on whoever posted that particular batch of pseudoscience.

Articles about alternative medicine are usually written by people who haven't responded well to their own diagnosis, or people who have absolutely no idea about the true horrors of facing a health crisis.  The former usually have bios like: "Karen Ladypants was diagnosed with an incurable terminal illness, but cured herself by eating a steady diet of whale placenta."  No, Karen, you didn't -- and fuck you for misleading people.  The latter bios often contain more acceptable information, and belong to people who have become invested in the epidemic of the American food industry, and go something like this: "Lulu Treebeard discovered in 2009, that everything you come into contact with in daily life is made from synthetic chemicals supplied by greedy corporations that pushed the Lorax into retirement.  She has adopted some fringe beliefs and now dedicates her time to promoting a healthy lifestyle, along with her husband and one very socially awkward son."

Let's be fair; there's nothing wrong with promoting a healthy lifestyle.  There isn't even a whole lot wrong with denial.  Promoting a healthy lifestyle is exactly what this author aims to do.  But I like facts, and because of that, you won't find me buying into anything for which there's no evidence of any benefit.  There is something wrong with pushing things that have no medicinal value, and that are occasionally dangerous or that cause the opposite of the desired effect.  I also consider it unethical to promote a product that has no known benefit, even if it isn't physically dangerous.  Because, in doing so, you are manipulating consumer fears to make yourself richer.  All of the darkest corners of economics can be found in the neighborhood of healthcare.

In terms of denial, or not fully adjusting to the new normative state you've entered through a tragic diagnosis or other event, I should first say that I completely understand.  I lived an entire year of my life curled up on the couch under a snuggie.  You want terrible things to go away, and you deal with that desire for a clean slate however you see fit.  But dealing with your own fears is one thing, playing on others' fears to validate your own denial is quite another.

This is what bothers me the most about the community to which I now belong.  In the midst of tragedy, you have a tremendous opportunity to help people.  In order to do so, you must have the courage to face the realities of your circumstances.  Cancer is incurable.  Science can't do it, the turnips in your backyard won't do it, either.  Man up, use the wisdom you've gathered from staring down the gates to the other side and make the world better.  Instead, these alternative health folks choose to increase the amount of suffering in the world by pushing placebos, or dangerous, ineffective treatments.

If it isn't proven to be effective, peer-reviewed, overseen by governing bodies, results recreated and independently verified, if there aren't statistics and survival rates and facts and figures, then you are doing something to your body and no one can predict the results.  Seek out alternative treatments only in conjunction with a conventional treatment regimen, and only if those particular alternatives have proven clinical benefits.

Supreme Genetic Overlords to Hear Case About Genetic Slavery

I get the feeling not many people are aware of the case coming before the Supreme Court next week.  At least, I hope that's the reason there isn't more of an uproar about it.  Public outcry was loud and boisterous when the internet was at risk -- when SOPA was on the table.  But I haven't yet heard anyone outside of the breast cancer community talk about the Gene Patent case with any gusto.  If you are aware of this case and aren't upset about its implications but were upset about SOPA, it's time for a public shaming.  You are basically saying you care more about sifting through pictures of illiterate cats than you do about private industry owning 20% of your body.

It's difficult for me to collect my thoughts long enough to write about the idea of gene patenting, because it's so completely absurd.  But I'll do my best to sort through it.  We'll start with what actually qualifies as intellectual property and what doesn't.  Due to recent circumstances in my own life, I've become somewhat of an expert on the topic.  First off, only physical, man-made material is subject to intellectual property law.  Ideas, thoughts, topics of interest, archetypes, stereotypes, etc., are not.  Neither are naturally-occurring substances.  I couldn't go out and patent a type of tree, for instance.  Disclaimer: Please make sure if you are seeking legal advice for anything related to intellectual property law, that you don't listen to me.  I'm not a legal professional, I'm just a very annoyed third party.

Medical research has a bitter history with bumping up against the acceptable limits of intellectual property law.  Probably 90% of all articles about this upcoming case highlight the work of Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine he developed.  I've never done any in-depth research on the man, but it seems as though (from an outside perspective) that he was about as benevolent as they come.  The vaccine he created, for example, was subject to patent law.  It was an engineered substance manufactured through many hours and labor and research, consisting of a unique formula invented by Salk in his laboratory.  What's most miraculous about the man, and what even extends beyond the fact that he cured the major disease of his time, is his decision not to patent his vaccine.  When asked for the rationale behind his decision, he famously said, "There is no patent.  Could you patent the sun?"

Well, you could, according to the defendant in this case, Myriad Genetics, as long as you isolate it.  And since the sun looks plenty isolated to me, I'm going to go ahead and snatch that up.  Any time you go outside after today, you're going to owe me a lot of money.  But I digress.  Like I said earlier, as a general rule, naturally-occurring substances and living things are not subject to IP law.  Viruses can't be patented, because they're alive and naturally-occurring.  But vaccines that use viruses in their formulas can be patented.  Even genetically engineered viruses can be, and are, patented.  As long as the patent includes a material invention that isn't a derivative of a previous invention, it's legal.  A modified form of anything organic can be patented, but the original thing itself cannot be.  This makes it so that several people can be researching a cure for AIDS at the same time, for example.  The AIDS virus can't be patented, but the unique research and therapies manufactured by various research teams can be.  Therefore, until now, it's generally been agreed upon that nothing organic could be patented unless significant work has been done to create a new, previously nonexistent substance.  Biotech companies have been ignoring this rule for years, though.  Now it's caught up with them, and the Supreme Court will make the final decision about whether or not organics are subject to patent law.  Myriad is arguing that the physical act of isolating genes allows them to patent the genes they isolate.  Granted, I don't know much about what it takes to isolate a gene, but I don't much care either.  I could isolate a rhesus monkey from its friends, but I'd probably be met by uproarious laughter if I told people I intended to patent it.  If this argument holds, you could patent anything, as long as you do the work to get that thing by itself.  Fair warning to the next girl I take out to a nice sushi dinner and thought-provoking film; consider yourself patented, sweetheart.

What makes this case particularly alarming, and why it's coming to a head right now, is that Myriad Genetics currently holds the patents to the two BRCA genes -- the genes heavily linked to an increased risk of breast cancer in women.  Keep in mind that there are several genes linked to an increased risk of other cancers that are also patented.  What this means, at a very basic level, is that Myriad Genetics controls every single thing associated with the BRCA genes.  If you want to be tested to see if you're at an increased risk of breast cancer, guess who gets your money?  If you want to be cured of breast cancer sometime in the future through emerging genetic therapies, guess who will be getting paid for that?  And since no one else is allowed to set foot in the BRCA arena, they get to charge whatever they want.  This keeps the costs of testing very high and inaccessible to most people.  I've looked into genetic mapping once myself, not for breast cancer, obviously, and found it to be very expensive.  A large part of the cost can be attributed to companies that own the parts of your body you're looking to have tested.

Aside from the economic issues associated with holding a monopoly on parts of a person, there are several moral implications as well.  Last I checked, owning people was outlawed a long time ago, by a fine gentleman with a sick beard and an address that took him to a place called Gettysburg (that I'm guessing he got from GoogleMaps).  Basically what these companies do, is go around looking for significant research that determines a link between specific genes and cancers, and buy them out and patent the genes.  Suddenly, if anyone else decides they want to work on curing that particular cancer using genetic therapy, they have to apply to the company that owns the patent for a license to do so, and pay for the license.  This practice limits the ability to pursue research into curing certain types of cancer -- research that should be widespread and accessible to anyone who wants to try their hand.

Gene patenting is a practice perpetuated by the very same people that ruin capitalism time and again for all the rest of us.  It seems pretty obvious to me, as a writer, that from a legal standpoint no one should be allowed to own something they didn't create.  And from a moral standpoint it looks pretty straightforward, too.  If you're deliberately limiting the ability to further medical technology and alleviate the suffering of millions of people, you yourself are a cancer.  May the ghost of Jonas Salk haunt your days forever.

There's plenty more I could write about this topic, but I hope I've provided a good introduction to the controversy that is gene patenting, and at least a few good reasons as to why you should be really, really pissed about it.  Right now, cancer is at the vanguard of the argument, but there's solid evidence to suggest that many, if not most, aspects of our physical and intangible natures are determined by our genetics.  In that case, we all have a very real incentive to nip this in the bud now, or gene patenting will open the door to a world where you'd have to purchase a license to have brown eyes, or be a specific height.  I'll be following the Supreme Court arbitration closely going forward, and I'll do my best to post updates as the situation develops.  As always, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, or contribute to the discussion.