This subforum under health and safety was originally designed to look at larger picture causes of illnesses.

The medical definition of holistic is: characterized by the treatment of the whole person, taking into account mental and social factors, rather than just the symptoms of a disease.

I should add also--isn't cannabis technically considered "holistic medicine"? They've done study after study proving conclusively that medical cannabis is at least somewhat beneficial. If you're able to show me a research study that doesn't say that marijuana is viable medicine, I will eat my own socks.

Sustainable habitats in outer space won't happen without trial & error. We'll need oxygen to breathe and water to drink and wash. When we consider constraints, whole grain diets become very attractive. Cereal grains deliver more nutrition per gram than other vegetables. Humans have crossbred cereal grains more than other plants for the same reason. Our ancestors sought storable food sources that supplied maximum nutrition. In this vein I recommend the Zen Macrobiotic diet as the closest to our aims for the least strain on our resources. _Likewise, we need to grow foods that supply all the crucial vitamins and minerals. As a 1st-step I'd like to see a special research project to find the healthiest foods. 95% of community health relies on good nutrition and hygiene. Forget "Holistic" medicine which is just a dubious label. We need to promote preventative medicine to a greater degree than the medical establishment which obscures the issue with unintelligible terminology.

Reading through the posts I have the impression that for some reasons the thread is discussing a false problem. "Holistic medicine" means that in order to find a cure for a sick body, which is a system, you need to take in consideration ALL the system and not only its parts. nowadays physicians usually take under consideration only one piece at the time:(, thinking that they are specialists and leave to their collegues the care of the other parts. This is what is wrong with contemporary practice. Holistic medicine is the artistic part of the science medicine, by artistic I mean the perfect interaction between science and intuition. This is not easy practice and not all phisicians can do that. I knew an old doctor, that was able to tell what was wrong with your body only looking at you, even before you tell him your symptoms, if you had any. This is what I mean for art: the perfection of the science through sensitivity and intuition. Herbs are good, food is good, Aspirine is good, many things are good, and actually we need an alternative to antibiotics.

The viability of holistic medicine and its effect on the client should be left there. The client is the main driver if their health and should be offered all alternatives in a free society as long as they are safe and legal. For example many CAM therapies(1), such as the above mentioned acupuncture and massage if any thing help to relax individuals and reduce stress (2). CAM therapy in general are used within healthcare here in the united states pretty liberally, that ranges from distraction therapy (aromatherapy, pet therapy, music therapy, guided imagery, ect.) to supplements (melatonin, essential oils, marijuana, ect.). CAM therapy may not be a smoking gun to cancer or a the cure to heart failure, but they do provide patients with a way to cope with these disease processes.

(1) (a) http://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/consumer-health/in-depth/alternative-medicine/art-20045267 (b) https://nccih.nih.gov/health/integrative-health

(2) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2005290116301224

Here is a list of CAM therapies https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK83796/

"By Shen_Xian: Acupuncture is a branch of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) and dates back 2000-4000 years. Surely, a medical practice that has survived a minimum of 2,000 years HAS to have some viability and i believe it is our duty to study it further."

As CDNeely rightly pointed out, the age of something does not mean that it is viable; there are over a dozen different religions that largely say very different things - would you apply the same logic to those?

Additionally, acupuncture has been investigated, however many studies of its alleged efficacy come from China, where we are also seeing numerous reports of massive proliferation of fraudulent studies being used to justify cultural practices.

Further, as a number of posters seem to be under the misapprehension that practices such as accupuncture or 'cupping' are 'accepted by the medical community'; this is rather hyperbolic, as a cursory glance through reputable medical journals do not give any indication of such an acceptance.

People may be conflating the views of a few celebrity doctors who dabble in these areas or even simply pander to an audience more inclined toward 'magical thinking', but who have published no credible studies in reputable journals, particulary ones that weren't retracted for glaring errors.

This high visibility of such quacks as Joseph Mercola and Mike Adams, and bloggers that pickup on their unsubstantiated claims, lead t oan availability cascade, creating the impression in people's minds that it is more widely accepted than in reality.

Even further, people often cite anecdotal evidence as being indicative of the efficacy of something; you may as well make the same arguments about people who see heaven during a near-death experience - its simply unscientific and cannot be reliably reproduced.

It gets even worse when the proponents attempt to use fuzzy explanations for something; Reiki is the best example of this that I can think of at this point in time, but it applies to other alternative practices also.

It may seem that I'm picking on Shen by now, but I do have to pick up one thing they said: "all im saying is that many in the western practices are unifing in the sense that we all agree that we dont know much of whats really going on.".

This is a classically fallacious argument; science works by falsification, not by making the 'appeal to ignorance' ("we don't know, so why not"). Science requires robust peer-reviewed studies in order to demonstrate the efficacy of something before it can be considered to be able to cut the mustard, and where this either hasn't yet been done, or has been done and shown to not work (of which there is plenty of evidence to illustrate), any positive claim made about it is simply unscientific.

"By S. Crawford: I know and work with a naturopathic doctor, and for you to call his entire profession "non-viable" is an insult to his degree, a degree that he obtained by attending medical school just like any other doctor."

This is not a legitimate argument supporting a claim of efficacy; whether someone trained under a highly respected witchdoctor for a decade and was conferred the mantle of 'being qualified' as a witch-doctor, but that does not support the claims made about the efficacy of the practices or treatments they promote. If it cannot be demonstrated by some scientific means, as explained above, then the claims made by its proponents are unscientific until they have undergone falsification.

Additionally, naturopathic doctors do not undergo the same training as a medical doctor, nor for the same requisite amount of time as a medical student before they are conferred a doctorate in medicine. If they did, they'd be medical doctors with a specialisation in naturopathic remedies.

However many naturopathic doctors themselves insult the medical profession by pushing unscientific claims, without robust scientific studies, and then cry conspiracy or unfair treatment when rebuked for being woo-peddlers when they fail to meet the same standards as medical doctors must meet as required by the peer-review process.

The efficacy, and existence of studies supporting their claims, of these practices are often grossly overstated; patients should be given alternative options for treatment without being mislead about how well they work and whether there is credible research to support them - otherwise we may be teaching 'Flat Earth' as an alternative in geography, and the 'Stork' alternative in reproductive health.

The bottom line is many of these practices have been investigated, and found wanting - as such, there is no scientific basis to continue to promote them until well researched studies that can pass the peer-review process in a reputable journal are forthcoming.

Not to belabour the point, but to claim that "it's an insult" when someone says that something is 'non-viable' or 'unscientific' in the face of a lack of evidence is insulting to the idea of the scientific method.

You cannot make a claim about reality, such as 'this alternative treatment works', without having scientific evidence, and then simply dismiss critics as 'just being mean'.

Just to reiterate what others have said: If it is proven to work then it's just medical science. There is definitely a place for research on traditional medical practices around the world as they can often contribute to what we already know after they have been scrutinised and subjected to peer-review. Also, there is a huge place for 'holistic' preventative medicine such as nutrition and exercise. What we don't need is unscientific or pseudo-scientific mumbo jumbo.

As a person who was forced to take medication as a child and teen ill tell you this, look up the side effects to these so called efective treatments i mean anti freakin depresints can make you suicidal. Heart pills can stop your heart hell you know how old people take fistfulls of meds? Its not because they need them to treat an illness or disorder its to stop the meds from killing them. One other point almost all meds are nature based and more and more studys are being done on the topic cause guess what? We dont know everything no mater how mutch we learn or study there is alwase more to learn and somtimes even geniuses get things wrong or misunderstand somthing. Please remember labodomy used to be an actual medical treatment.

For those of you citing sites that supposedly expose the "non viability" of holistic medicine and alternative treatments. I have to say, that I think you should be aware of the monetary reasons why alternative treatments and holistic medicines are claimed not to be viable. Big pharma stands to lose billions if people were to start seeking alternative/holistic treatment methods. So, naturally, they campaign to discourage folks from doing so. Before there was a such thing as pharmaceuticals, people relied on natural remedies found in nature and guess what? They worked!, in fact, pharmaceutical companies get their ideas for new drugs from natural sources! Which in all reality speak to the effectiveness of natural methods of treatment and expose the blatant bullshit big pharma feeds the public all the time.

This thread has every right to exist on this forum, just because you maybe of a different opinion does not mean it should not have a place on this forum

deleted

As a practitioner of one form of holistic medicine not dependent on chemistry, I can say that there are tangible and identifiable benefits of certain holistic medicine practices.

There are also a lot of crappy remedies that are touted as holistic but are really just new wrappings on old snake oil.

The hard part is figuring out the difference.

I agree wholeheartedly. 

If this is supposed to be a scientific nation there is no place for unproven voodoo. This especially critical when, eventually, science and engineering will be what keeps the nation alive in space. The problem is that the voodoo pedlars do a very good job of brainwashing. Just look at the vast amounts spent on Homeopathy and the glaring absence of peer reviewed evidence of efficacy. If we are going to spend money on this sort of stuff in the face of all available scientific evidence we may as well go full-stupid and start a climate change denial campaign too.