Were complementary doctors always right? For years, they treated their patients with frugal antibiotics. Although, they suffered from infections in which their school-medical colleagues thought that strong drug therapy was inevitable. They were often criticized for doing so.
Now the tide has turned. New guidelines recommend avoiding antibiotics in diseases such as angina, bronchitis, bladder and otitis, until the course is outstanding. Suddenly, pediatricians and family doctors with additional training in homeopathy or Chinese medicine get high marks for their reserved prescribed practice.
This can be a pleasure for many complementary physicians. But in fact, this development is primarily the success of evidence-based medicine, which requires quality studies as the basis of therapies. The new recommendations are based on extensive missing data previously and show that the benefits of antibiotics in diseases are often too small to outweigh the potential harm and risk. Studies help improve patient treatment. This kind of insight is actually the exact opposite of self-understanding of complementary medicine. It relies on the experience of explaining it and often excludes scientific arguments.
And so it is actually a funny point that homeopaths and anthroposophists are now meeting the new requirements better than many school doctors. Because according to the same scientific standards they meet in the case of antibiotics, they act predominantly placebo medicine.
It is now hoped that the success of complementary physicians will encourage those GPs and pediatricians who currently find it difficult to work part-time with antibiotics.
Created: 12.11.2019, 22:36 hour