Pain killers like advil typically have harmful side effects if over-used (acetaminophen, or Tylenol, is in my opinion heavily over-used because it doesn’t actually work very well for most people, can cause liver damage, and is added to other medications—like hydrocodone—for no other reason than to punish people for using them “too much”). Most of the medications in this list, however, are not medications that can be safely “cut back” or avoided. They are anti-coagulants, anti-convulsants, anti-depressants, etc. People who need them cannot replace them with “natural” remedies, even if certain aspects of diet may affect the relevant condition (fish oil and green tea are both “natural” anti-coagulants, for instance, but are not sufficient for therapeutic management). (And of course, “natural” just means “unregulated”—they have a real physical effect and you have to understand that and account for it, or you can do yourself harm just like you can with prescription medication; this is why people are instructed to avoid fish oil and green tea before surgery.)
What really pisses me off is that most of the arguments I see about “cutting back on medicine” (certainly the one presented by the OP here) are not grounded in legitimate discussion of the risk/benefit analysis of doing so. Being on anti-coagulants IS something to be avoided if possible, because they carry the risk of hemorrhage and increased mortality. However, in most cases they are prescribed because that risk is outweighed by the probability of clots. The first time I had a clot, they put me on warfarin for three months and then took me off it because they considered it riskier to keep me anti-coagulated. Then I had another clot and a pulmonary embolism, and it became apparent that the risk of anti-coagulation was outweighed by the risk of me dying of an unprovoked clot.
Even pain medications (including, my favorite, narcotics in pregnancy) should be considered against the stress that unmanaged pain places on the body—stress being a major cause of negative health outcomes. Not all pain medications, as noted, are equally useful. I have discussed at great length why I think that epidurals are, generally speaking, at best a dubious form of pain management for childbirth; certainly I don’t think that most patients get complete information about their risks and benefits. But that is an evidence-based discussion that is totally remote from the OP’s smug bullshit.
When I see even medical professionals denying friends prescriptions to anti-emetics for no other reason than this vague conviction that medication is unnecessary until proven otherwise, despite the total lack of harmful side effects associated with those anti-emetics and the OBVIOUS ill effect of being nauseated/vomiting constantly, it infuriates me.
I almost never see people saying “FOOD HAS NO EFFECT ON YOUR BODY, JUST TAKE PILLS.” But I see a ton of people saying “PILLS ARE THE MAN KEEPING YOU DOWN, ALL YOU NEED IS GOOD FOOD.” To act like both sides are presenting themselves as equally diametrically opposed strikes me as extremely disingenuous.
I really don’t understand why these things have to be violently opposed. Why can’t you believe in both? Also, what is the harm of cutting back on medicines where applicable? The difference between life-saving medicines and, say, advil is pretty extreme, you know?
And for the record, diet does affect almost everything, except huge deficiencies. I know that I have better control of my Rare! Disease! through diet, but I don’t have ABSOLUTE CONTROL.
I believe in…
Avocados, not Advil
Beans, not Benadryl
Cauliflower, not coedene
Dragonfruit, not Dramamine
Eggplant, not epitol
Flax seeds, not Fortical
Grains, not Glucotrol
…
(Source: healthyandhappyandhopeful, via ponytailtime)
