Dr Frank: Alternative medicine -v- conventional medicine?

A friend of mine recently went to see her GP about her aching jaw. It became apparent that it was muscular ache due to the grinding of teeth at night. The GP prescribed her a muscle rub and told her to use it regularly and it would help relieve any discomfort. Upon reading the ingredients in the lotion, I found that all the ingredients in the lotion were none other than the essential oils that I use regularly on my patients when carrying out Aromatherapy treatments. If GP's are happily prescribing medication containing essential oils and herbal extracts etc, does this not prove that Alternative medicine is just as effective as conventional?

I wonder if Dr Frank has ever prescribed any medicines containing herbal extracts..

And of course - Dr Frank is an expert on both sides of this question!! I'm not an expert on either but have vast experience of both & am refreshed when GPs are open minded enough to embrace something that might swing away from their mainstream. Blinkers off & remember their Hippocratic oath - the one that says about not harming people (every drug in the BNF has potential harmful side effects!). Of course, one has to bear in mind that even complementary therapies can be unsafe in untrained hands so if conventional doctors set out with the belief that it's safe because "there's nothing in it" they are sorely mistaken. Lots of complementary therapies can be very dangerous in the wrong hands. They shouldn't "dabble" anymore than Joe public should.
In my experience as a Homoeopath, I am dealing with serious pathology every day - most patients end up with an alternative practitioner because conventional medicine has not helped them - or made them worse. My results are very good - the vast majority see improvements very quickly & continue with the healing process until many are cured.
It is true that some conventional drugs are based on natural materials but they are synthesised & contain many other dangerous ingredients so that is a very poor arguement. It's not a competition - conventional medicine has it's place - and that is in absolute emergency situations I believe. The vast majority of illnesses can be very well treated with complementary therapies - don't knock it until you've tried it!!

Well, if they put it in a jacket and sell it with the BMA's blessing the pharmaceuticals can make some money to keep their shareholders happy.
The main reason the western medicine establishment don't like 'natural' is because 'natural' can not be patented.
The day they can patent THC in cannabis is the day it will become a truly legal drug i reckon but as it stand and it was legalized now the only ones that would benefit would be the food or tobacco industries. And the pharmaceuticals loosing out is not on now innit?

Many convential medicines have herbal ingredients. It's not a competition you know.

indeed, but i think the wording itself should be the other way round, and chemistry polutes our organisms, natural remedy is much, much better for you because there is no chemical, the only problem with as you call it alternative is that becuse people don't know the right mixtures. so go for the unadultered one.

I would suggest that you consult a Homeopathic Physician.

Nope! I'm a firm supporter of herbs in medicine. Probably the active ingredients are similar to what you use because it works. I'm guessing they were menthol/peppermint, wintergreen with salicylic acid, or have capsicum in it.

If you check the pharmaceuticals of a hundred years ago, you'll find they had many herbs in the book for diseases. But, new things came along along with treatments and cures for diseases that before were then incurable.

Unfortunately, the trend was to rid the pharmaceuticals of all herbal remedies, thus, loosing a great deal of history and potential cures were lost for a time or all time. Today, the West is rediscovering these cures and the benefits of Chinese medicine cures.

There's a difference between aromatherapy and mainstream medicine. A good doctor well versed in homoeopathy chooses which is best for the patient, traditional herbs or modern medicines.

A well versed patient checks out if alternative methods are available for a cure, if the Rx medicine isn't working. Or, sometimes seeks to combine it with the regular Rx medicine.

We can't ignore the past. The more research that is done in these areas, the more we find that these ancient herbs and cures contain some very modernistic drugs.

Everyone has a right to choose Conventional or Alternative Medicine
A lot of these things do work our grandmothers would have used them
I think for minor things yes but i think a serious illness should be treated by Conventional medicine because they are finding cures all the time

Alternative medicine used to be conventional medicine before the white lab coat was invented.

Generally prescribing advice given to GPs, from the specialists that advise them, is not to use local rubs at all. They are however often given as relatively cheap placebos.

Thus in this case I would have neither used a conventional rub, non-steroidal or rubifacient, nor a herbal one, since neither work!

In answer to the more general question, I, like the vast majority of GPs, will tend to follow conventional and scientific prescribing advice.

The rational arguments for using homeoopathic medication is it is at least harmless and makes a useful placebo. With herbal remedies one cannot even be sure of that!

Off the top of my head I can think of many approaches to your aching jaw that may be at least as good as that rub, and few of them are 'conventional'. Not knocking aromatherapy at all!

It really is not a competition but the attitude of many conventional medics does not encourage us to work together for the benefit of the one that matters - that is the one who is suffering. There are as many bigots in natural medicine as there are in orthodox and my advice is: get on with the job and stop bothering about it.
If the whole business of wanting to 'prove' that natural medicine works is important to someone I would question where that's coming from. To me, a therapist intent on proving this point is as insecure within themselves as the docs and 'scientists' are that rubbish natural medicine.
When i started in the profession in 1976 it was a very big issue and there was the feeling we had to fight our corner at every turn. Since then the sheer weight of numbers of those successfully and confidently seeing natural medical practitioners has swung everything around.

The work stands up for itself; no need to defend or stand up for it. The best practitioner of any kind is one who works on his/herself to become a clearer vehicle for the job.
If docs are not prepared to work with me for the good of the patient, as i am with them, that's everyone's loss. It saddens me, but I have to get on with it, and entering into conflict only makes matters worse.
In my time I have had successful professional relationships with many docs, though sadly these are in the minority. It's sometimes necessary to avail ourselves of the healing from both approaches.
It is a pity that sometimes practitioners get confused about each other's disciplines as this confusion ultimately harms the patient; eg, that homoeopathy is harmless - it isn't if used incorrectly. Ditto that natural practitioners occasionally diagnose outside their speciality, and docs can be stuck in ignorant opinions of other disciplines. I wish there was a free flow of discussion without prejudice, but that isn't human nature.
The advantage of natural medicine used holistically is that it will treat the person, not just the symptom; there is often little understanding of this process in natural medicine let alone orthodox. This is a pity because it is the greatest gift natural medicine has to offer.

Alternative medicine has nothing to prove, it's the practitioners of that and orthodox medicine who sometimes think it has.

yes indeed herbal medicine is just as effective as conventional medicine and even better in some cases and vice versa.alternative medicines such as aromatherapy can assist the patients well bien in both types of medicines.conventional medicine does come from nature it is scientifically restructured in most medicines or even left naturally in some.however herbs in there pure state are a better medicine because it has eliminating properties that enhance health holistically.this is the difference between the two medicines , the principals are the same,treating a condition,or disease with the correct medicine. In alternative medicine we believe that disease is born out of putrification and fermentation left too long in the system,and herbal medicine eliminates this.conventional doctors claim they do not know the reasons behind many diseases they simply treat them when they arrive.for this reason alone herbal medicine is by far superior.

No, they are not at all effective in fact they can be dangerous. What would you suggest giving someone with pneumonia or septicaemia then? Basil, or Aloe Vera? Do you think that would cure it?