No! Nearly all treatments have adverse effects on the system. This includes both “natural” and “conventional” treatments. A treatment which is powerful enough to kill or dislodge one kind of cell will almost certainly have impacts on other cells. This is why I ascribe to the idea that, if you need treatment, you should choose from the treatments known to actually treat your specific problem. Why suffer the side effects and risks for an unnecessary treatment?
Let’s take the example of a microparasite, Lyme borreliosis - the microorganism that causes Lyme disease, and is itself passed between humans and other hosts by the macroparasite, the deer tick.
In the early years of the Lyme epidemic, there was serious fear that it was uncurable. Doctors tried rigorous courses of very harsh antibiotics, but even though people seemed to improve at first, the disease always returned and worsened - both in animals and in people. Victims suffered serious and permanent neurological damage as Lyme slowly ravaged their systems.
They were willing to try many “alternative” and “natural” cures, as well as all the harshest courses of antibiotics, and to suffer the many side effects, in desperate attempts to find a answer.
Today, we know that the solution was not to take a harsher cure, but to take a relatively mild cure for a much longer period of time. Common and relatively mild antibiotics like doxycycline are effective, but if the Lyme has spread beyond a localized infection to the neurological system, the subject must be treated for thirty days - far longer than a typical course of antibiotics, which may run a week or ten days.
Knowing the right treatment for the specific problem is critical to treating it with a minimum of unwanted side-effects.[quote=“soy, post:49, topic:25483”]
From my perspective this sentence is prejudiced and misleading. “as effective as medicine” would need to be defined…
You are twisting my sentence and inserting your own prejudice. I did not say “as effective as medicine,” and it wasn’t in reference to alternative medicine. I referred to any substance that works; that is to say, anything that is effective as a medicine. My statement applies to “natural” cures as well as to “man-made” cures - if something is powerful enough to work as a medicine, it will inevitably be powerful enough to have side-effects, as well. I was inherently referring to “natural” cures as medicine, just like “man-made” substance… that which cures, is medicine.
This sounds more consistent with things read on conspiracy theory web sites than anything in real life… and I’ve had plenty of exposure people who work in health care and pharmaceutical companies. There are definite problems with for-profit health care systems, but deliberate suppression of safe and effective treatments is not one of them.