Alternative Medicine in Utah
Dr. Thaddeus Jacobs approaches his patients' health and vitality using a combination of convential medicine evaluation and treatments along with methods he has found very helpful that are not generally accepted by conventional medical doctors and hospitals. This "alternative" way of practice is one way of defining alternative medicine. Dr. Jacobs prefers to call his practice style, integrative, complementary and alternative medicine. He blends the best of modern conventional medicine and traditional natural medicine to help his patients achieve health and vitality and get on with enjoying life.
Utah's laws are unusual in that they allow insurance companies to deny alternative medicine benefits to you, the patient, even though the provider is licensed by the State. Unlike most alternative medicine, Chinese medicine and naturopathic practitioners, visits to see Dr. Jacobs ARE covered by insurance. Click on the Insurance Accepted! and Services tabs, above, to learn more about insurance coverage and Dr. Jacobs' approaches and the therapies he uses.
Comments on Alternative Medicine Definitions
Contributors to Wikipedia and other websites note the following in their definition of "Alternative Medicine":
"In Western culture, alternative medicine is any healing practice "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine",[1] or "that which has not been shown consistently to be effective."[2] In some instances, it is based on historical or cultural traditions, rather than a scientific (e.g. evidence-based) basis. Critics assert that the terms “complementary” and “alternative medicine” are deceptive euphemisms meant to give an impression of medical authority.[3][4][5] Richard Dawkins has stated that "there is no alternative medicine. There is only medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work."
There are numerous problems with the above definition. First, combining together "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine" with "that which has not been shown consistently to be effective" assumes from the get-go the supremecy of conventional medicine without addressing the widespread understating of ongoing safety and effectiveness issues that exist in conventional medicine. This issue is readily evidenced by the thousands of medical journal articles that come out each month espousing new and improved drugs and disease management strategies; implying recent approaches are inferior, ineffective or less effective at best. Readers are encouraged to visit the following eye-opening links on medicine, research and 'evidence-based medicine' for further education on this ongoing and vastly under-reported problem and to counter to the "deceptive euphamisms meant to give and impression of medical authority" argument remarked in the above definition.
http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp
http://www.annals.org/content/151/3/206.full
You are also encouraged to go to www.theintegratorblog.com website to review hundreds of other relevant articles from leaders in the field of health care and health care reform.
Also, consider the fact that there is a tremendous amount of "evidence based" research in favor of "alternative" or "complementary" medicine. It rarely comes forward, at least through conventional medicine practitioners, because there is no company spending billions of dollars each year (yes, billions!) to market these treatments. In fact, hundreds of studies come out each year that support natural and common sense therapies to treat disease. Of course, these studies are not taken much further on a larger scale because (of course!) there is no financial incentive for a company to do so! For instance, in 2009, there was research that showed increasing water intake decreases colon cancer 92%, flaxseed lignan decreases BPH and likely cancer, antioxidants create 25-45% hearing improvement, antioxidants statistically improve arthritis and psoriasis, the list goes on and
on!
It is naive to believe the "evidence based" medicine reported in the media and medical journals when it these studies are funded by a company that stands to gain from it. Research tampering and fear-mongering are well-used marketing tactics utilized by drug companies. Take for instance the facts of recent history (there are hundreds of other offenses that could be covered, but are too many to list):
The use of medical ghost writers for research, as noted here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/13/business/13wyeth.html?_r=1&ei=5070&emc=eta1,
Or the noted child psychologist and a radio host were paid under the table to promote antipsychotic drug use in children:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/25/health/25psych.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/health/22radio.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1
How about pfizer getting caught manipulating their studies:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/08/health/research/08drug.html?ei=5070&emc=eta1
Or glaxo smith kline manipulating avandia research
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/13/health/policy/13avandia.html?partner=rss&emc=r\ss
Leading to panels questioning the pharmaceutical giants research credibility
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/14/health/policy/14diabetes.html?partner=rss&emc=\
rss
The offenses for cancer research are absolutely mind boggling and to many to mention here.
Smear these facts with a slathering of monthly newspaper articles that come out citing negative evidence against nutrition and other "alternative" medicine practices. Some of these articles have merit, but, by-and-large, the majority are written by misguided journalists who simply write what industry-paid "researches" are encouraged to report with regard to the alternative medicine. "Alternative" medicine, which is now used by the majority of the US population, continues to grow and capture a sizeable share of today's total healthcare dollars. The growing utilization of "alternative" medicine poses a real threat to the currently dominant over-priced, over-promised and under-delivered conventional medical system we encounter today.
Should you have questions about recent research findings, please feel free to contact me. I'm happy to comment on the actual data, not the authors' conclusions. Oftentimes, the actual data and the authors' conclusions are incongruent. Often, studies are designed to fail, using dosages or methods known to be ineffective. There are many facets to interpreting research and I'm happy to clarify the facts for you.
