Alternative Medicine News
Alternative Medicine Pioneer Dr. Steven Sinatra Speaks on “Earthing; The Most Important Health Discovery Ever?”
Playa Del Rey, CA (PRWEB) November 18, 2010
A pioneer in the field of alternative medicine, Dr. Stephen Sinatra is speaking on the topic of – “EARTHING: The Most Important Health Discovery Ever?” on the free webcast series Wellness Revolution 2 at budurl.com/wellnessnews on November 22 at 4 PM Pacific Time.
Dr. Sinatra, is a board certified cardiologist who describes himself as an “integrative cardiologist”. That is, he prefers to treat heart disease by using the best of both conventional and alternative medicine.
His use of the recent discovery of “earth energy” he claims has profound implications for wellness. The practice of using the earth’s energy is called “earthing” and entails “grounding” a person to the earth much as an electrical current is grounded. Dr. Sinatra will explain the theory and practical applications of earthing in a one-hour interview on the Wellness Revolution 2 webcast series at budurl.com/wellnessnews.
Dr. Sinatra is also featured in this year’s bestselling book on effective alternative medicine treatments for cancer by actress Suzanne Somers entitled “Knockout”.
Dr. Sinatra has used his wide experience as a cardiologist, nutrition specialist, certified bioenergetic psychotherapist, and an anti-aging specialist, to create much of the information we now have about alternative medicine. Dr. Sinatra explains some of his “integrative” philosophy,
“Good health information is based on all of the facts, not just the ones that support your agenda.”
Alternative medicine claims to be reviewed
An academic review of international research on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is to take place over the coming months, focusing on three specific therapies identified by a Department of Health working group report — acupuncture, herbal medicine and traditional Chinese medicine. The additional fields of osteo-pathy and chiropractic will also be examined in the review. A critical review of literature on the therapeutic effectiveness, safety and contemporary public policy on the regulation of these complementary therapies since 2000 will also be carried out.
The new study is expected to identify all academically accredited and validated programmes carried out on these therapies by higher education institutions in Ireland, the UK and other countries like Australia and New Zealand — countries that have national frameworks on complementary therapies, which are compatible with the Bologna qualifications framework, a European framework of qualifications in the higher education area.
The review must identify all accredited programmes of higher education since 2005 and, where validation of such therapies has ceased since then, an analysis of the reasons for such a step and whether these were driven by academic, market, political, reputational or scientific concerns.
An open tender for research groups interested in carrying out this study is currently taking place.
Alternative medicine: why it can do more harm than good
Flying from India to attend the Battle of Ideas festival last month, I spoke on the panel of a lively debate entitled “Alternative medicine: the pros and cons”, where I outlined the reasons why I oppose alternative and complementary medicine.
In outlining my opposition, first let us look at the deficiencies of modern medicine. It cannot cure all illnesses. It can often take a long time to make the correct diagnosis. Sometimes it can fail to make any diagnosis at all, for example, chronic pain syndrome. Some of its treatments, especially for cancer, are very unpleasant. Many, if not the majority, of modern practitioners of medicine stress the science
of diagnosis and treatment, perhaps to the detriment of the “art of healing”. These are the gaps that alternative medicine claims to fill.
Unfortunately, these claims have not withstood scientific scrutiny. The scientific foundations for many of the claims such as, for example, that the dilution of a medicine increases potency (in the case of homeopathy), points for acupuncture, the four humors (in Ayurvedic medicine), do not have any basis in anatomy or physiology and are merely hangovers from a time when science had not reached its present state of advancement.
To the argument that ‘alternative medicine works, so why oppose it?’, I say there are many dangers, such as the exploitation of the credulous patient and the failure to treat a potentially curable condition which is life-threatening unless properly treated. There is a long history of societies being exploited by priest-doctors. We should guard against individuals who lay claim to special powers.
There are specific problems in India, although many of these are perhaps common to countries where there are a lot of poor people. Eighty percent of spending on medical treatment in India is private, out-of-pocket spending. Indeed it is the number one cause of rural indebtedness. And due to poor medical services, India has a very high rate of maternal and infant mortality. Against this backdrop of limited availability of medical care and government reluctance to spend public money on healthcare (currently less than 5%of GDP), it suits the government to suggest that “traditional healers” are an alternative source of medical care. Making a virtue out of such “traditional healers” due to the fact that there are not enough trained doctors (in India only only 7 in every 10,000 people are trained doctors) and nurses (7.85 per 10,000) is a cynical exercise of the worst kind.
Defenders of alternative medicine do a terrible disservice to the poor of the country by providing intellectual justification for the government’s failure to provide quality medical care. Denying the privilege of modern medicine to a large section of our citizens by trying to convince them that traditional medicine is as effective when all evidence shows that it is not, is nothing short of criminal injustice.
A section of those who are better off can afford to dabble in alternative medicine, secure in the knowledge that they can run to the nearby modern medical centre whenever they wish. For such “faddists”, alternative medicine is just one option. However, the poor of India have no such options and by forcing them to use the ineffective snake-oil of alternative medicine, the government is squandering tax-payers money and demonstrating that they are too callous to provide quality care.