"sounds almost as bad". So you don't know anything about functional medicine but you somehow think it's a marketing scam. Why not actually look at the results being published about its efficacy? Why not find out why innovative MDs are leaving allopathic medicine for functional medicine? Why are so many MDs dissatisfied with their work? (check out the statistics, they are alarming) Why aren't most MDs competent in matters of nutrition and exercise? Why don't they understand how to resolve chronic disease?



You are being overly defensive and ignorant. The science behind functional medicine is sound. There is a great deal of congruency with the medicine you have studied, but there is a greater emphasis on nutrition and of course the causes of disease. The endocrinology unit in my wife's functional medicine course was ridiculously detailed. She's also a pharmacy owner and a practicing pharmacist who got top grades in both her life sciences (pre med to you) studies and her pharmacy studies. She's not a flake.

I am not saying that MDs aren't, on average, well-informed, intelligent people who have good intentions. I am saying that functional medicine practitioners are also well-informed, intelligent people who have good intentions. There is no great disparity in terms of ability to practice good medicine between the fields. Functional medicine is particularly strong in the area of understanding the cause of disease as well as in the area of treating chronic disease. MDs are more focused on, and competent regarding, urgent/emergency care. My functional medicine practitioners are well ahead of every doctor I have talked to when it comes to preventative medicine and causes and treatment of chronic disease.

If you guys want to say you've lost respect for me due to your own ignorance, that's fine, but I'm going to at least offer you the opportunity to learn something about other ways to help human beings achieve health.

This post was edited by RewtheBrave on Oct 23 2016 05:36pm

most chronic disease has no resolution, and when exercise and dieting are effective treatments for chronic disease, people choose not to adhere to those treatments. there is no current treatment that will fix chronic kidney disease for example, dead nephrons to not replace themselves. if MD's are dissatisfied with their work its because they have to put up with bureaucracy and stupidity every single day. physicians dont prescribe detailed exercise regimes or diet plans because there are other health care practicioners for that, such as kinesiologists and dietitians. to say that physicians only understand urgent/emergency medicine is hilariously naive of you, and that speaks to the true lack of understanding you have about the breadth of medical knowledge.

here you are, educate yourself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_medicine

I actually saw an interview on medscape about functional medicine last week and he pretty much said it was the same thing as regular medicine except you're looking at the "whole picture" with focus on their diet and preventing the illnesses but you also treat with medicine as needed. He criticized the need for someone seeing 6 different doctors since they won't end up getting great treatment due to the doctors not working together to form the plan of care. It also seemed like he said pretty much every illness including cancer starts in the gut due to an imbalance there. I believe he blamed it on intestinal flora.

While he has a lot of valid points in the interview there are flaws as well. The main problem I see is that it is necessary that someone see multiple doctors because of the amount of knowledge in each individual specialty. It isn't possible to see one doctor for every type of disorder. Would you honestly see one doctor who knows a little bit about each system or see a specialist in the relevant system?

This post was edited by dark-soul on Oct 23 2016 06:33pm

that doesnt sound just dumb af to you?

Actually, probably not. Just got done with my first block recently (elements of medicine, just biochem, molec bio, etc), and thus far, med school has been far easier than I was imagining. Studied around ~2-4 hours/day pretty much daily and ended the block with a ~95%. No cramming, late nights, etc. I just REALLY love the autonomy because essentially all lectures are optional (I do not attend), with the only required things being variable through the week, usually not daily, consisting of histology lab, clinical correlates, case studies, etc. The pdf packets they give are comprehensive, so I don't attend or listen to lectures, just read. But that's also what works best for me, obviously some get more out of lecture than others. Overall, having a really good time with med school, would vehemently recommend.

I said I didn't agree with what he was saying. I don't know anything about functional medicine outside of that interview so I'm pretty indifferent towards it. The healthcare system in the us is changing into a lot of what he's advocating for though. We used to only treat the disease or symptoms and send them on their way until their recurrence, but now we focus on health promotion with patient centered care which gets the patient involved in their plan of care. We also educate the patients more on how to use the healthcare system so they get better results. You'd probably be surprised at how many people go to the er for literally everything.

This post was edited by dark-soul on Oct 23 2016 08:00pm

AKA an osteopathic approach?

Are you saying functional medicine is the same as osteopathic?

I did not say that physicians only understand urgent/emergency care; I said that is part of the strong suit of physicians (as opposed to functional medicine practitioners). I am quite certain that most physicians have very little understanding of nutrition, which is quite unfortunate, especially considering that improper nutrition is a leading cause of disease and general dysfunction. I understand the general scope of practice for physicians, but I also understand how ignorant many physicians are when it comes to, for example, the benefits of chiropractors and personal trainers. I would say the situation is getting better. I am friends with some physicians, and I am often surprised by how little they understand about nutrition, the spine, the gut biome, and so on. Most are interested and willing to learn a bit more about these topics. One of the functional medicine practitioners I know has recently enrolled 50 physicians in his program, which is a great step forward. Clearly not all physicians see functional medicine as quackery.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with integrated medicine or preventative medicine, but there is a huge gap in communication and education on the side of physicians.

And you're wrong about chronic disease. One key form of "resolution" is prevention, which is, unfortunately, a realm where most physicians feel really uncomfortable. One of the doctors I know is upset because he has all kinds of ailing and fat patients. So I asked him for his thoughts on preventative medicine, and it quickly became obvious that he did not understand what I meant by preventative medcine (he was thinking in terms of vaccinations, pap smears, fingering buttholes, and that sort of thing). When I hinted that I was talking about lifestyle, diet, and nutrition, he got the idea. He has recently put on 40+ pounds, and he currently feels helpless regarding his weight gain and potential loss of health. Moving back to the idea that chronic disease is unresolvable, I get that this is a prevailing belief, but it's wrong in many cases. Not all forms of chronic disease are about dead nephrons.There are several pockets/clinics which defy the odds. Some functional medicine practitioners are in this minority.

The wikipedia article attacking functional medicine is a terrible article. The FTC's claims against early functional medicine may or may not be substantiated, but even if they are, they only encompass a very small portion of the activity of the field at that time. Moreover, Gorki's criticisms are basically a set of personal remarks based on a long time bias against any alternative medicine. If you read the article under citation 5, where one might expect a well-organized scientific case against functional medicine, you essentially see a bunch of name-calling against Mark Hyman. As it happens, isn't the Cleveland Clinic the 2nd highest rated hospital in the United States? But nevermind that. Gorki is just a huge inflammatory, in my mind a bit like the Rush Limbaugh of oncology. Instead of relying on a biased, poorly sourced article, why not actually think for yourself and take the time to learn more about functional medicine? As it turns out, to my knowledge, The Cleveland Clinic has been preparing a very positive review of its functional medicine practice. It is only Gorki, an outsider, who called it quackery.

You may wish to take a look at the results coming from Sachin Patel's practice through his Living Proof Institute. I believe his success rate is about 90% at present.



They don't have a lot in common with osteopathy. The osteopath who helped me with concussion-related issues (when my physician had no idea what to do and after the attending physician at the hospital screwed up, I might add) was closer to a physiotherapist or a chiropractor than a functional medicine practitioner, in terms of scope of practice. Where they "meet", osteopaths still work on different levers when working on the spine. I will add that my functional medicine practitioner was also able to provide some help to me when my doctor felt there was nothing he could do.

e: I just read the claim against functional medicine regarding its weight loss claims. The source article cites Metagenics as being ineffective. That is patently false, at least with the current Metagenics system. I happen to know this for a fact because my wife sells the product and it has gotten rave reviews. I made fun of it at first, but I was open-minded enough to try it just for kicks last year. I lost over 11 pounds in 9 days. So, yeah. Anyway it's basically ketosis, everyone know that works.

This post was edited by RewtheBrave on Oct 24 2016 01:29pm

So i googled functional medicine and it doesn't sound different from the way we're being taught to treat our patients

Obviously docs in the ED are more worried about acute care because the acute symtpoms the pts are experiencing are the reason they're at the ED (aka in distress), but once theyre out of trouble yes the underlying cause of the symptoms is treated for....what are you talking about

This post was edited by jajaja on Oct 24 2016 02:53pm