That is not what they are saying. They are not saying that they use
alternatives TO mainstream care but increasing the use of the term
alternative and is used IN conjuction with mainstream care.
There are a lot of insurance carriers allowing chiropractors and massage
services to be included in coverage.
There are biofeed back mechanism being used in chemotherapy for example so
it is not exclusive use but in conjuction with.

  All

Have to disagree with you there.
IT is very much a cultural thing and alternatives can provide fill in
measures when conventional medicine is lacking.
I would not call that as insignificant.
There are many spheres of influence on a persons health status.
There are psychosocial aspects that modern medicine can not deal with. Those
are difficult issues such as support systems that impact on health.
It's important but sort of like the high divorce rate that nobody can do
anything about. It's there but difficult to deal with.

It's been promoted for awhile.

People are not happy with Western medical treatment and are seeking
alternatives,"

What you have heard, is NOT what *I* have heard.

OMMV.

Alternative medicine KEEPS growing.

Get use to it.

http://www.dralexvasquez.com/alternativemedicine.htm

These articles may be summarized as follows:

 a.. The use of natural medicine is increasing rapidly in the United
States.

 b.. More than half the population uses natural medicine, and the people
who use natural medicine tend to be the segments of the population that are
younger, better educated, and those with health problems that do not respond
to pharmaceutical drugs and surgery.

 c.. Most people pay "out of pocket" because insurance policies in the
United States do not value preventive medicine--even though preventive
medicine saves more money and saves more lives than does "interventional
medicine"--treatments used to address a problem after it has occurred.  The
wise adage, "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" is,
unfortunately, ignored by many policy makers.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Health care spending, delivery, and outcome in developed countries: a
cross-national comparison.

Shi L.
University of South Carolina, School of Public Health, Department of Health
Administration, Columbia 29208, USA.

Am J Med Qual 1997 Summer;12(2):83-93

This study examines the trend of health care spending, availability and use
of medical services, and aggregate health outcome of the 24 industrialized
member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD). Major differences between the United States and other
OECD countries are highlighted and discussed. The results of the study
demonstrate that, over the past four decades, the United States has been
spending more and accomplishing less when compared with other industrialized
nations. The United States needs to learn from the successful experience of
other nations. Redesigning the system of health care delivery in the United
States may be the only viable option to improve the quality of health care.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Public health, medical care, and mortality rates.

 Shi L.
 J Health Care Poor Underserved 1995;6(3):307-21

 This study examined the association between public health spending and
leading mortality rates in the United States. Results indicate that
government spending on public health is significantly associated with
improving the life chances of the population. Public health spending was
consistently associated with reduced total mortality and with lower
mortalities due to heart disease, cancer, and stroke--the leading causes of
death in the United States. However, medical care expenditures on hospital
care and prescription drugs were significantly associated with increased
total mortality and mortalities due to heart disease, cancer, and stroke.
The policy implication is to reorient the currently expensive, clinically
based, treatment-focused medical care system toward a more cost-effective
health care system oriented toward public health and prevention. A more
balanced health care system, with concomitant emphasis on medical care and
public health, should be established.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997:
results of a follow-up national survey.

 Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M,
Kessler RC.
 Center for Alternative Medicine Research and Education, Department of
Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Mass 02215, USA.

 JAMA 1998 Nov 11;280(18):1569-75

 CONTEXT: A prior national survey documented the high prevalence and costs
of alternative medicine use in the United States in 1990. OBJECTIVE: To
document trends in alternative medicine use in the United States between
1990 and 1997. DESIGN: Nationally representative random household telephone
surveys using comparable key questions were conducted in 1991 and 1997
measuring utilization in 1990 and 1997, respectively. PARTICIPANTS: A total
of 1539 adults in 1991 and 2055 in 1997. MAIN OUTCOMES MEASURES: Prevalence,
estimated costs, and disclosure of alternative therapies to physicians.
RESULTS: Use of at least 1 of 16 alternative therapies during the previous
year increased from 33.8% in 1990 to 42.1% in 1997 (P < or = .001). The
therapies increasing the most included herbal medicine, massage,
megavitamins, self-help groups, folk remedies, energy healing, and
homeopathy. The probability of users visiting an alternative medicine
practitioner increased from 36.3% to 46.3% (P = .002). In both surveys
alternative therapies were used most frequently for chronic conditions,
including back problems, anxiety, depression, and headaches. There was no
significant change in disclosure rates between the 2 survey years; 39.8% of
alternative therapies were disclosed to physicians in 1990 vs 38.5% in 1997.
The percentage of users paying entirely out-of-pocket for services provided
by alternative medicine practitioners did not change significantly between
1990 (64.0%) and 1997 (58.3%) (P=.36). Extrapolations to the US population
suggest a 47.3% increase in total visits to alternative medicine
practitioners, from 427 million in 1990 to 629 million in 1997, thereby
exceeding total visits to all US primary care physicians. An estimated 15
million adults in 1997 took prescription medications concurrently with
herbal remedies and/or high-dose vitamins (18.4% of all prescription users).
Estimated expenditures for alternative medicine professional services
increased 45.2% between 1990 and 1997 and were conservatively estimated at
$21.2 billion in 1997, with at least $12.2 billion paid out-of-pocket. This
exceeds the 1997 out-of-pocket expenditures for all US hospitalizations.
Total 1997 out-of-pocket expenditures relating to alternative therapies were
conservatively estimated at $27.0 billion, which is comparable with the
projected 1997 out-of-pocket expenditures for all US physician services.
CONCLUSIONS: Alternative medicine use and expenditures increased
substantially between 1990 and 1997, attributable primarily to an increase
in the proportion of the population seeking alternative therapies, rather
than increased visits per patient.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 The Growth of Chiropractic and CAM
 More Bad News for Medicine
 Two recent studies published in the Annals of Internal Medicine1,2 go a
long way in defining the current role of "complementary and alternative
medical (CAM) therapies" in the United States. Each provides a look at CAM
from a different perspective: that of the industry and that of the patient
consumer.

 History of Alternative Care

 The first study reads like a history of alternative care. The study,
conducted by the Harvard Medical School and Beth Israel Deaconess Medical
Center, examines the growth of CAM from the 1930s through the 1990s.1 The
results are extremely encouraging.

 See the graph.

 Keep reading, lots of good information.

 <snip>

 Understanding the Differences Between Conventional, Alternative,
Complementary, Integrative and Natural Medicine

 by
 Anna MacIntosh, PhD, ND
 Dean of Research, National College of Naturopathic Medicine, Portland,
Oregon USA

 from Townsend Letter, July 1999

   This paper will attempt to delineate the differences between and
definitions of, conventional, alternative, traditional, complementary,
natural, holistic, and integrative medicine. The author begins with the a
priori notion that there are differences between these areas of medicine.
Assumptions about and credibility of "a newly emerging field of medicine" is
greatly impacted by one's understanding of the term used to describe that
field. At least some other medical authors would concur that word meanings
can have a significant impact on credibility, application and regulation in
the profession of medicine.1,2

   Clarification of the terms used to describe different areas of medicine
should be based on appropriate word meanings as found in standard
dictionaries. To define is to "set forth the meaning of; to determine or
identify the essential qualities or meaning of; to fix or mark the limits
of; to characterize (or) distinguish (something)."3 Definitions for
conventional, alternative, traditional, complementary, natural, holistic,
and integrative medicine need to convey the essential qualities and
uniqueness of each field of medicine. Suitable definitions will benefit
insurance companies, healthcare consumers and practitioners. Whether these
definitions become standard appears to be a matter of politics, power and
changing healthcare values of the American public.

   It is important to understand and eventually agree on the correct
terminology that should be used synonymously with conventional medicine, the
dominant medical system in the United States and other developed nations.
Appropriate identifiers for conventional medicine would include allopathic
or orthodox medicine. The term allopathic (in Greek "allo" means other)
medicine was coined by Samuel Hahnemann, MD, in the late 18th century in
reference to the use of therapeutic modalities which are based on the
assumption that symptoms need to be treated, i.e. opposed.4 The focus on
treating symptoms appears to have developed as one of the guiding treatment
principles in orthodox medicine.

   Use of the term conventional or orthodox provides the dominant medical
system in the United States an almost automatic credibility. Synonyms for
orthodox include accepted, approved, established, sanctioned, and
authoritative. Each of these words connotes a high degree of credibility
within the American social, economic, and insurance structure. In fact,
using the terms conventional or orthodox does not appropriately describe the
practice of that form of medicine (as does allopathic), but rather provides
it with a sanctioned power. The power of those terms are so great that to
some extent they lead to negating the existence of any other system of
medicine.

   Although "traditional medicine" is often used synonymously for orthodox
medicine, Webster's definition of "traditional" would suggest that this term
is not an appropriate identifier for conventional medicine. Traditional is
defined as the handing down of opinions, doctrines, practices, rites, and
customs, especially by oral communication.3 Correct word usage would dictate
traditional medicine be reserved for Chinese, Ayurvedic, Tibetan, or other
indigenous medical systems.5 All of these have century-old philosophies and
practice foundations, which are heavily rooted in the traditions of each
society. Cultural, spiritual and societal beliefs have largely formed the
basis of traditional systems of medicine. In the sense that allopathic
medicine would claim its basis to be scientific, rather than cultural or
spiritual, traditional medicine should not be used synonymously with
orthodox medicine.

   By utilizing the identifier of traditional medicine, allopathic medicine
effectively softens the hard, uncaring edge of a medicine "at war" with
disease. The emphasis on disease and high technology rather than on health
and individualized care, creates a visit to an orthodox physician which is
often replete with impersonal attendance to a disease entity. Using the term
traditional in fact, helps root allopathic medicine in humanity and removes
it from the cold world of technology and systematized economic incentives.

   The term biomedical is also often used to refer to conventional
medicine.6 This term again conveys credibility and power to conventional
medicine. The assumptions that underlie "biomedical" medicine are that it is
accurate, scientific and proven. It is a medicine based on the biological
understanding of the organism. Given the tremendous advances in our
understanding of the physical universe, i.e. quantum physics, it is clear
that the biology of living organisms is not as simple as the textbooks would
suggest. In fact, the evidence that the mind and body are one and that the
human body is more than a structural and biochemical entity is
overwhelming.7,8 Recognition that the body has an energetic level is
burgeoning and can be partially explained by quantum physics. Therapies
which are currently within the vast realm of "alternative medicine," such as
acupuncture and homeopathy, may actually be best explained as therapies
which impact physiology via the energetic level.9 With a more contemporary,
comprehensive understanding of human biology, biomedicine becomes an
inappropriate, exclusive identifier for conventional medicine.

   To discuss accurate and appropriate definitions of alternative,
complementary, natural, and integrated medicine requires clarity regarding
the difference between a system of medicine and the practice of medicine.
The dictionary defines the practice of medicine as the "scientific study of
diagnosing, treating, or preventing disease." Notably this definition does
not include any reference to a system of medicine. The American Medical
Association (AMA) has stated that for any medical system to be truly
credible it needs to have a theoretical basis.10

   Despite the apparent absence of allopathic medical philosophy classes in
conventional medical schools, the theoretical basis of allopathic medicine
appears to have stemmed from Pasteur's findings regarding infectious
illness.11 Namely, that a single agent causes a single type of disease and
that a specific therapy can be used to treat that disease. This has been
called the "doctrine of specific etiology." This simple doctrine along with
the quick symptom-relieving effects of synthetic drugs and surgeries, have
undoubtedly contributed to the dominance allopathic medicine enjoys today.

   Pietroni, a general medical practitioner from the United Kingdom, has
written several short articles posing his concerns over clarifying
terminology in this vast field of alternative medicine.1,12 He states "Much
confusion arises from the belief that holistic medicine and alternative
medicine are the same."12 He further suggests that there are four distinct
aspects to alternative medical therapies; 1) complete systems, 2) diagnostic
methods, 3) therapeutic modalities, and 4) self-care approaches. These
various aspects of "alternative medicine" should be understood separately
and not under one single definition.

   Eisenberg's survey study defined alternative medicine to mean a
treatment which is not taught by US medical schools or offered at any US
hospital.13 Although this definition was useful for the purpose of
Eisenberg's survey, it is somewhat inaccurate. Alternative medical
treatments are taught at naturopathic medical schools and alternative
medicine is often used to include alternative diagnostic procedures, not
just treatment modalities.12 The term "alternative medicine" is used by many
to mean any medical therapy which is not a synthetic drug or not surgery.
For the purpose of research through the NIH Office of Alternative Medicine,
the definition of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is "CAM is a
broad domain of healing resources that encompasses all health systems,
modalities, and practices and their accompanying theories and beliefs, other
than those intrinsic to the politically dominant health system of a
particular society or culture in a given historical period."2 In other
words, alternative medicine has come to mean a treatment, which is not the
standard of care in conventional medicine.

   Basing a whole area of medicine on something which it is not, rather
than on what it is, suggests that there is no theoretical foundation to the
field of alternative medicine. The author suggests that if the term
"alternative medicine" is simply used to mean therapies, which can be used
to treat ill health, but are not the "standard of care," then the paradigm
for practice of alternative medicine is the same as orthodox medicine. This
translates to a patient with disease X being given herb Y or nutrient Z to
treat their disease. The assumption by the medical community is that herb Y
or nutrient Z is just an alternative to drug Q.

   Natural medicine could be considered a system of medicine within the
field of alternative medicine. It is more than just an alternative approach
to treating a specific disease. A comprehensive definition of natural
medicine would be the science and art of preventing, curing or alleviating
ill health using treatment modalities in harmony with the laws of nature.
Natural medicine is a medical system, which cares for and treats
individuals, not disease entities. Applying the laws of nature of the
physical/energetic universe to human physiology forms the foundation
principles for the practice, teaching and research of natural medicine. It
is not so much the specific treatment modality, which defines the field of
natural medicine, but rather the approach to the patient and the paradigm,
which is used by the practitioner to determine a treatment plan. Synonymous
with natural medicine is naturopathic medicine.

   Naturopathic medicine began in the United States in the early 1900's by
a German-born healer, Benedict Lust, and was more formalized and
systematized by Henry Lindlahr, MD in his published volumes on natural
therapeutics in 1919.14 Lust defined naturopathy as the use of nontoxic
healing methods derived from the best traditional healing systems from
around the world. The ideas, theories and practices described in Lindlahr's
first two volumes are so important to understanding the roots and
foundations of natural medicine, that contemporary naturopathic medical
schools still use them as textbooks in naturopathic medical philosophy
courses.

   As a matter of clarification, a short definition of homeopathic medicine
is presented. Although naturopathic medical colleges teach the principles
and practice of homeopathic medicine, it is in fact a complete system of
medicine. Homeopathy has both a systematized theoretical and therapeutic
basis.15 This system of medicine was developed by Samuel Hahnemann, MD in
the late 1800's. Hahnemann proposed the theoretical framework and researched
specific homeopathic remedies. The theoretical foundations for homeopathic
medicine are too extensive to be reviewed in this manuscript; interested
readers are referred to several good publications.4,15 The practice of
homeopathic medicine is conducted using a natural medicine paradigm, with
the treatment modality always being a homeopathic remedy. In essence,
naturopathic/natural medicine shares the same medical/healing paradigm as
homeopathy, but natural medicine is more comprehensive and eclectic in its
choice of treatment modalities.

   Complementary medicine, like alternative medicine, is best understood,
not as a system of medicine, but rather as a practice of medicine. Unlike
alternative medicine, complementary medicine is a non-standard treatment
given in conjunction with allopathic therapy, as opposed to instead of a
standard treatment. The allopathic paradigm of disease still guides the
treatment plan. For example, treating hypertension with a synthetic drug
like propranolol (beta-blocker), may not effectively lower the high blood
pressure or may produce unwanted side effects. Complementary medicines could
be used in conjunction with propranolol to help alleviate side effects or
help lower blood pressure to normal ranges.

   It would appear that the term complementary is often used synonymously
with alternative medicine.2,6 This does not seem to be appropriate word
usage. A dictionary defines complementary as "what completes or necessarily
coexists with."3 Whereas alternative is defined as "mutually exclusive" or
"a choice between two or more things."3 Clearly, these terms have different
definitions and should not be used interchangeably.

   Allopathic doctors may have suggested that these terms could be
interchanged to help keep alternative medicine in its proper place within
the medical system.6 Not surprisingly, allopathic doctors would view the use
of "non-standard" treatments skeptically and automatically assume they are
less effective than standard treatments. By using complementary as a synonym
for alternative medicine, allopathic doctors are comfortable with
alternative treatments used in conjunction with, but not instead of
allopathic treatments. This inappropriate interchange of terms creates
unwarranted assumptions and dilutes the credibility of alternative medicines
in the mind of healthcare consumers. It suggests that all non-synthetic
agents (i.e. nutrient, herbal, other supplements) are unproven in efficacy
and have all been compared to synthetic drugs for their overall safety and
effectiveness. Until this type of research has been conducted it would seem
that sagacious use of word meanings dictate "alternative" and
"complementary" be defined as separate and distinct practices of medicine.

   The term holistic medicine used to be a popular term, and now with the
interest in "alternative medicine," is not used as much. In fact, this
author would suggest that holistic medicine is an archaic and confusing
term. Since there is no system of medicine, known as holistic medicine, and
the premise of holism fits well within the realm of natural medicine
paradigm, natural medicine is probably a more appropriate term.

   Finally, integrative medicine has also been used interchangeably with
alternative and complementary medicine.16 Integrative medicine is another
term without a foundation philosophy. Proper word usage would dictate that
integrative medicine be used by a single medical practitioner who is
familiar with allopathic therapeutic armamentarian and alternative medicine
modalities, such that the patient receives "integrated" treatment. The term
"integrative medicine" would also be appropriate for a clinic in which a
patient is treated by both allopathic and alternative medicine
practitioners. Integrative medicine could be considered synonymous with
complementary medicine, as defined here.

   In an ideal, non-biased, non-political society, perhaps integrative
medicine should be the term applied to the whole healthcare system. A system
based on physicians fitting into the scheme of patient care depending on
their type of training. For example, naturopathic physicians are trained in
the majority of "alternative medicine" modalities, while learning how to
deal with patients from a natural medicine paradigm. This training positions
naturopathic physicians as experts in prevention and gentle treatment of all
common ailments and chronic degenerative diseases which have a dietary and
lifestyle, i.e. multifactorial etiology. While allopathic medical training,
with its emphasis on disease pathology and technology have expert training
in high intervention medicine. When surgery is required, when a potent
antibiotic is required, when a strong, potent drug is required, when life
support systems are required, conventional medicine practitioners have
unparalleled expertise.

   In summary, I would propose that accurate use of the terms
"alternative," "complementary" and "natural" medicine would benefit the
health consumer, insurance companies, biomedical research and the medical
community. As the American healthcare system moves to integrate "alternative
medicine" practitioners, perhaps that integration will be more systematized
and appropriate if the type of medicine that clinicians practice is more
clearly understood. Furthermore, terminology clarification will help guide
the development of appropriate research models and hypotheses. For example,
the effectiveness of natural medicine should be judged based on the accuracy
of its theoretical foundations, whereas the effectiveness of alternative
medicine cannot be judged as a whole, since it is not a "system of
medicine." Only individual, "non-standard" therapies can be studied as part
of alternative medicine.

   References

 1. Pietroni, P. Alternative medicine. J Roy Soc Arts 1988; 81, 791-801.

 2. Panel on definitions and descriptions. Defining and describing
complementary and alternative medicine. Alternative Therapies 1997; 3,
49-57.

 3. Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, (Merriam-Webster Inc.,
Springfield, Mass, 1991.

 4. Monte, T., et al. World Medicine: The East-West Guide to Healing Your
Body, Putnam Publishing Group, New York, pgs 42-46 , 1993.

 5. Tan, M.L. Traditional or transitional medical systems? Pharmacotherapy
as a case for analysis. Soc Sci Med 1989; 29:301-307.

 6. Benjamin, S., Berman, B. & Jacobs, J. Exploring the other health care
systems. Patient Care 1997; July:133-169.

 7. Ader, R., Cohen, N. Psychoneuroimmunology, Academic Press, New York,
1981.

 8. Becker, R.O. The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of
Life, Quill, William Morrow, New York, 1985.

 9. James, G. Homoeopathy: an energy level therapy. Prof Nurse 9: 54-57,
1993.

 10. Lynoe, N. Theoretical and empirical problems in the assessment of
alternative medical technologies. Scand J Soc Med 17, 257-263, 1989.

 11. Shryock, R. The Development of Modern Medicine, Madison, Wisconsin,
1979.

 12. Pietroni, P. The interface between complementary medicine and general
practice. J Royal Soc Med 87:28-30, 1994.

 13. Eisenberg, D., Kessler, R., Foster, C. & al., Unconventional medicine
in the United States; Prevalence, costs, and patterns of use. N Engl J Med
328:246-252, 1993.

 14. Lindlahr, H. Natural Therapeutics, CW Daniel Co., England, 1919.

 15. Kent, J.T. Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy, North Altantic Books,
Richmond, California, 1981.

 16. Ali, M. A soulless science. J Integrative Med 1997;1:1-5.

    http://www.tldp.com/medicine.htm

   Read the entire page.

Well forty years ago your doctor may have locked you up or put you on
barbituates for suggesting you had an intolerance or allergy to a food
substance. The Naturopathic or alternative healers were all ridiculed, out
of fear, as they are now, for the same treatment your "allergist" is
suggesting.

The alternative people are just 40-50 years ahead in most medical fields.

C.Health (chealth@nospam.net) wrote:

I solved a lot of health problems with elimination diet/food challenges,
that mainstream medicine had never done anything for.

Food intolerance isn't all that "alternative" - it was a conventional
allergist who got me started on doing the elimination diet etc.  But
no mainstream type, even allergists, ever suggested that my various
health problems might be from food intolerance.

A naturopath might have suggested this a lot earlier.  Not that I'm an
alternative medicine fan because of this - it's like there's this huge
gaping hole - the food intolerance gap - in mainstream medicine; people
sense this hole, and they fill it up with "alternative" stuff, which has
little grains of truth in it, along with a lot of non-truth filler.

Laura