Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
Why are most mfp users against holistic nutrition?
Options
Replies
-
amusedmonkey wrote: »Areca nut has been used for thousands of years for stamina and digestion. Thanks to modern medicine we now know it's a known carcinogen.
If you were to visit Papua New Guinea, you would see that betel nut as they call it is much worse than just carcinogenic. Thousands of people are horribly addicted to it, and they chew it all day long. Most of them have chewed their own teeth away and yet they still can't or won't stop. It makes a nasty red paste which they spit everywhere. Don't get me wrong, I think it's great that modern science has classified it. But I think you will find they've known it was bad for them for a very long time.
3 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There actually IS something we can do about it. Each of us plays a small role, at the least, in determining whether the culture promotes woo or promotes more scientific approaches. Whether it's considered an "of course, it's responsible" to have children vaccinated or take them to a doctor when sick or whether "eh, I thought I'd have someone check their aura."
In the OP's case, she's considering whether to become part of the system promoting woo or whether to question and rethink that.
I would agree that absent really, really extreme circumstances adults have self determination and can make even decisions I consider really unwise or based in superstition about their health, of course, and with respect to most of the stuff on MFP the only harm is maybe delaying doing something that actually would be more helpful. But that does not mean that our only alternative is to actually encourage the idea that crystals are the same as medicine or that if I might be sick or have a weight problem I should detox, since it's the "toxins" causing it. Saying "no, that's wrong, that's not scientifically supported at all," especially on a forum like this where there may be lurkers actually looking for information. And, ideally, giving good reasons for our opinions or links to actual respectable sites is a positive step.
Saying "no, that's mean, you should never question what someone else does, even on the internet in a general discussion about the merits of holistic medicine" is in reality encouraging and promoting a culture that does not respect science and is hardly the only alternate to legally forcing people to see doctors or take medication.
My objections have had nothing at all to do with kindness. I have not said anything about anyone being mean. I'm suggesting that there are all kinds of options to western medicine, many of which are proven to work as you admit yourself. The anti-woo crowd is doing itself a disservice, in my opinion, by severely limiting their health options and doing others a disservice by trying to prevent alternative medicine from being available as an option.
I don't want to get surgery on my back and I don't want to manage my pain with medications. I'm currently happy and able to do my job as a result of the alternative treatments I receive. My hairdresser was miserable for years but has finally lost some weight and is happier and more energetic than she's been in years with her (totally suspect but somehow effective) blood type diet. Why is this such an affront to the anti-woo crowd? What business is it of yours in the first damn place?
See, this is what I was talking about earlier - anecdotal evidence vs controlled studies. I'd buy it if someone could show me a legitimate blind study where people with identical symptoms were divided into random groups and given diets either conforming to their blood type or not. If the results showed verifiable improvement in the symptoms of those who ate the diet consistent with their blood type, and little or no improvement in the other group I'd be completely convinced, and would be advising others to give it a try.
I'm not convinced by the blood type diet either. I wouldn't do it myself and I wouldn't recommend to anyone. If it's the magic bullet my hairdresser needed, however, what the hell do I care?
You don't have to see a chiropractor if you don't want to but you not wanting to doesn't mean I shouldn't be able to. I'm not trying to get western medicine shut down because I use chiropractic; many western medicine proponents, OTOH, are trying to prevent me from having access to a chiropractor. You don't have to follow a blood type diet if you don't want but my flaky hairdresser should be able to if she wants to.
5 -
@VintageFeline There is a theory that goes back many decades amongst old stoners that puts the blame on Dupont. From memory, it held that post WW2, Dupont wanted to corner the market with its newly patented fibre called nylon. So they lobbied US congress to ban Cannabis as a recreational substance in order to do away with the strongest natural fibre available at the time, Hemp. I have no references or reason to believe this is fact. But I know my country simply banned it as part of the terms and conditions of the USA's standard trade agreement.
Most recently my countries medical regulation agency announced that despite so many US states changing their laws, that they have no plans to reassess cannabis for medicinal purposes.0 -
@VintageFeline There is a theory that goes back many decades amongst old stoners that puts the blame on Dupont. From memory, it held that post WW2, Dupont wanted to corner the market with its newly patented fibre called nylon. So they lobbied US congress to ban Cannabis as a recreational substance in order to do away with the strongest natural fibre available at the time, Hemp. I have no references or reason to believe this is fact. But I know my country simply banned it as part of the terms and conditions of the USA's standard trade agreement.
Most recently my countries medical regulation agency announced that despite so many US states changing their laws, that they have no plans to reassess cannabis for medicinal purposes.
I've never seen convincing evidence for this theory. You see it repeated a lot in secondary sources, but I've yet to find primacy sources that back it up.1 -
http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/05/03/476636183/death-certificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors
For those that questioned the statistic earlier5 -
Purgatives are popular with medicine men because of the visible effects. Yup, native practitioners are well aware which plants make great purgatives. Too bad not all diseases can be cured with a good purgative.
Similarly, the detox concoctions contain ingredients to provide spectacular and colourful excrement. Built-in "proof" of their "effectiveness".
@born_of_fire74 I took the time to link an article that pointed to all the flaws in the paper that suggests that one-third of deaths in the US can be attributed to medical error. I maintain that one-third of deaths in the US are due to lower chronic respiratory diseases (CDC).
Copied again for your convenience.
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/are-medical-errors-really-the-third-most-common-cause-of-death-in-the-u-s/7 -
I've been reading a bit about synthetic vs. natural - it truly is a "gray" area but found this tidbit that I found funny for some reason.
Melatonin is a popular natural “sleep aid”, and naturally derived melatonin comes from the pineal glands of animals, which may contain viral material. Synthetic melatonin is molecularly exactly the same, and is much safer to take.2 -
born_of_fire74 wrote: »lemurcat12 wrote: »There actually IS something we can do about it. Each of us plays a small role, at the least, in determining whether the culture promotes woo or promotes more scientific approaches. Whether it's considered an "of course, it's responsible" to have children vaccinated or take them to a doctor when sick or whether "eh, I thought I'd have someone check their aura."
In the OP's case, she's considering whether to become part of the system promoting woo or whether to question and rethink that.
I would agree that absent really, really extreme circumstances adults have self determination and can make even decisions I consider really unwise or based in superstition about their health, of course, and with respect to most of the stuff on MFP the only harm is maybe delaying doing something that actually would be more helpful. But that does not mean that our only alternative is to actually encourage the idea that crystals are the same as medicine or that if I might be sick or have a weight problem I should detox, since it's the "toxins" causing it. Saying "no, that's wrong, that's not scientifically supported at all," especially on a forum like this where there may be lurkers actually looking for information. And, ideally, giving good reasons for our opinions or links to actual respectable sites is a positive step.
Saying "no, that's mean, you should never question what someone else does, even on the internet in a general discussion about the merits of holistic medicine" is in reality encouraging and promoting a culture that does not respect science and is hardly the only alternate to legally forcing people to see doctors or take medication.
My objections have had nothing at all to do with kindness. I have not said anything about anyone being mean. I'm suggesting that there are all kinds of options to western medicine, many of which are proven to work as you admit yourself.
There are many things that can be helpful for different issues that are not actually ALTERNATIVES to western medicine, but additions to it.
For example, to use some of the things you have mentioned, most people who get massage therapy or address health by changing lifestyle or their diet or find yoga a helpful kind of exercise (or even spiritual practice) ALSO believe that western medicine is important for other issues (it seems kind of insulting to call it that, it's just medicine, hardly unique to the west). They aren't alternatives, but both/and.
Acupuncture may be less common, but I certainly think one can consider that helpful, or pressure points or so on, without rejecting the scientific basis of medicine.
What is objected to here are fake diagnoses and claims that one should pay for things like "detoxes" which are total bunk. Or, as you seemed to support, that the idea that it's ethical and reasonable to push the blood type diet (which is total nonsense) or whatever else someone else might enjoy. Or to spread false information such that you must do a specific type of diet to lose weight (if you eat carbs or don't fast you won't lose fat, if you eat any animal products you will be unhealthy, so on).The anti-woo crowd is doing itself a disservice, in my opinion, by severely limiting their health options and doing others a disservice by trying to prevent alternative medicine from being available as an option.
Again, if you are defining "alternative medicine" so broadly as to mean all the kinds of things discussed above or lifestyle changes, yes. But that's a strawman -- no one has said that nothing besides medical solutions are ever helpful.I don't want to get surgery on my back and I don't want to manage my pain with medications. I'm currently happy and able to do my job as a result of the alternative treatments I receive.
Well, again, no one is saying you should.
I had foot issues and addressed it with physical therapy, not medication or surgery. I wouldn't say that means I am rejecting medicine or choosing "alternative medicine." I've also found yoga and massage and losing weight helpful at times. Same.
But if you say we should support LIES about the scientific support for the blood type diet (which is nonexistent) because someone might benefit due to a placebo effect or buy into it and be able to stick to a diet, then no. It's disrespectful to tell people lies or false information just because they might benefit. That doesn't mean that changing how you eat can't be helpful - of course it can. But not because there's a way to eat for blood type or aura or whatever.
Someone might make money from a pyramid scheme, but that doesn't make selling them not unethical, and that's how I feel about purveyors of things like detoxes or the blood type diet. They are fraudsters. And it really is worth noting how much support for things like this and anti medical rhetoric seems to overlap with things like anti vaxxing, really dangerous stuff.3 -
And the only reason they synthesize at all is because you can't patent a natural extract.
Um, yes....yes you most certainly can. Natural extracts are extracts, meaning there was an extraction, an extraction is a process, you can patent processes. You can't patent willow bark but you certainly could patent a natural extract from willow bark. The nature (no pun intended) quality and purity of the extract will be specific and unique to the process. If you have the best process to yield the most active effective form that is demonstrably better then you can and should have a corner on the market until your patent expires in order to help recoup your research and development expenditures you used to make a better product. Someone of course is welcome to compete with a different extraction process but if their product is not as good you should probably take that into account in your purchase.
There is a legitimate reason that aspirin is a better product for pain relief than going into the woods and chewing on bark. At this point it has gone generic as the patent has expired but at one point it was owned by Bayer, who developed the process which was then patented.
If you really believe that a purified derivitive is exactly the same as going into the woods and chewing on a plant and takes no effort to create I'm not sure what to tell you other than you are very wrong about that.
12 -
Try telling the thousands of people who are getting real results treating child seizures with cannabis oil that it's hokum, because it doesn't have approval and a sufficient body of clinical testing evidence.
Honestly i'd probably tell them exactly what you said, that it doesn't have a sufficient body of clinical testing evidence and has not shown to be effective. If they want to use it anyway I'm not going to stop them but I might suggest that they look into what seizure medicines HAVE been clinically tested and shown to be effective and that they might want to at least try those first. I mean, that is sensible right?
8 -
Aaron_K123 wrote: »And the only reason they synthesize at all is because you can't patent a natural extract.
Um, yes....yes you most certainly can. Natural extracts are extracts, meaning there was an extraction, an extraction is a process, you can patent processes. You can't patent willow bark but you certainly could patent a natural extract from willow bark. The nature (no pun intended) quality and purity of the extract will be specific and unique to the process.
I'd love to see an example of that.
That sounds perfectly sensible to me. But then I've been fortunate enough to not have to watch my child have seizures and what I've read seems to suggest those parents who have found it to work already tried all known options. They aren't using it as an "alternative remedy" but rather, the best remedy. And here is where we have the disconnect with modern medicine. Science is great. But very few people are putting money into science for the glory of science itself. So, until someone decides to put the time and money into running the clinical trials required. Those parents will commit a federal crime in pursuit of helping their children in the best way they know of.Aaron_K123 wrote: »Try telling the thousands of people who are getting real results treating child seizures with cannabis oil that it's hokum, because it doesn't have approval and a sufficient body of clinical testing evidence.
Honestly i'd probably tell them exactly what you said, that it doesn't have a sufficient body of clinical testing evidence and has not shown to be effective. If they want to use it anyway I'm not going to stop them but I might suggest that they look into what seizure medicines HAVE been clinically tested and shown to be effective and that they might want to at least try those first. I mean, that is sensible right?
Don't get me wrong. I think legality of substances is a huge other topic that really isn't part of this discussion. But Cannabis just happens to be an excellent example of something that is working for many people. And with no support from western medicine. Because Western medicine is bound by it's own bureaucracy.
Do I want people to have safe drugs that work and have been tested and vetted in a scientifically sound manner.. Yes. Do I think people who have days/weeks/months to live should be able to try experimental drugs, lotions, potions or voodoo? Definitely. I'm not saying anything bad about western medicine. I'm simply saying it is silly to even suggest that anything not covered by it is automatically hokum. Because Western medicine is a big business that by it's own admission, does not have all the answers and is discovering new things every day.1 -
Cannabis is a perfect example of a popular product gone mad. I once contributed to a discussion where proponents were suggesting turning all farmland and graze land over to hemp production, as hemp seed is the perfect food and hemp the perfect plant to grow.0
-
On balance it is the strongest natural fibre, with minimal preadation and the seeds have 5 times more protein than soy beans. But a monoculture of that scale would be a complete disaster.1
-
Aaron_K123 wrote: »And the only reason they synthesize at all is because you can't patent a natural extract.
Um, yes....yes you most certainly can. Natural extracts are extracts, meaning there was an extraction, an extraction is a process, you can patent processes. You can't patent willow bark but you certainly could patent a natural extract from willow bark. The nature (no pun intended) quality and purity of the extract will be specific and unique to the process.
I'd love to see an example of that.
That sounds perfectly sensible to me. But then I've been fortunate enough to not have to watch my child have seizures and what I've read seems to suggest those parents who have found it to work already tried all known options. They aren't using it as an "alternative remedy" but rather, the best remedy. And here is where we have the disconnect with modern medicine. Science is great. But very few people are putting money into science for the glory of science itself. So, until someone decides to put the time and money into running the clinical trials required. Those parents will commit a federal crime in pursuit of helping their children in the best way they know of.Aaron_K123 wrote: »Try telling the thousands of people who are getting real results treating child seizures with cannabis oil that it's hokum, because it doesn't have approval and a sufficient body of clinical testing evidence.
Honestly i'd probably tell them exactly what you said, that it doesn't have a sufficient body of clinical testing evidence and has not shown to be effective. If they want to use it anyway I'm not going to stop them but I might suggest that they look into what seizure medicines HAVE been clinically tested and shown to be effective and that they might want to at least try those first. I mean, that is sensible right?
Don't get me wrong. I think legality of substances is a huge other topic that really isn't part of this discussion. But Cannabis just happens to be an excellent example of something that is working for many people. And with no support from western medicine. Because Western medicine is bound by it's own bureaucracy.
Do I want people to have safe drugs that work and have been tested and vetted in a scientifically sound manner.. Yes. Do I think people who have days/weeks/months to live should be able to try experimental drugs, lotions, potions or voodoo? Definitely. I'm not saying anything bad about western medicine. I'm simply saying it is silly to even suggest that anything not covered by it is automatically hokum. Because Western medicine is a big business that by it's own admission, does not have all the answers and is discovering new things every day.
Method of extraction of morphine and related derivatives. Patent US 2062324 A
Process for extracting and purifying morphine from opium. Patent US 6054584 A
both are patents for the process of extracting purified extracts from natural sources.9 -
I'd love to see an example of that.
Sure, Bayer patented the process to produce the acetylsalicylic acid (the active ingredient for aspirin) from willow bark in 1898 in Britan and then in 1900 in the United States.
The US patent number is 644,077 if you want to look it up.
https://www.google.com/patents/US644077
Here is the history version if you don't like patent lingo
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/bayer-patents-aspirin
Their patent made them a household name and help them grow into the powerhouse they are today.
Improvments in formulation can improve delivery and if you look there are 100s of patents filed on formulations of salicylic acid all the way up to the modern day which led to the development of competitors who offered variation on effective delivery of acetlysalicylic acid
Here is one from 2014 with it formulated as a gel
https://www.google.com/patents/US8828979
Acetylsalicyclic acid is a natural product. What you mean to say is natural products cannot be patented. Natural extracts and formulations based upon processes to obtain natural extracts or on formulations of natural extracts certainly can. You are acting like if an extract was derived from a natural product you could just somehow produce its equivalent by wandering into the forest one day. If you are claiming these processes and formulations do nothing to affect efficacy then you are just plain wrong not sure what to tell you about that.
Oh but that was way back in 1898 maybe you are saying what about recent history. Okay how about for cancer.
Look up Curcumin, Resveratrol, Apigenin, Quercetin,
Just to start you off here is a patent for creating a natural extract of Quercetin from onion accepted in 2012.
https://www.google.com/patents/US20120114827
Can you patent a leaf? No. Can you patent a process by which you extract an active ingredient from that leaf, purify it and formulate it into an effective drug? Absolutely.
EDIT: Sorry for all the edits my links keep breaking.
11 -
The best thing that came out of this thread is “Storm.” Omg- love it!5
-
jseams1234 wrote: »Aaron_K123 wrote: »And the only reason they synthesize at all is because you can't patent a natural extract.
Um, yes....yes you most certainly can. Natural extracts are extracts, meaning there was an extraction, an extraction is a process, you can patent processes. You can't patent willow bark but you certainly could patent a natural extract from willow bark. The nature (no pun intended) quality and purity of the extract will be specific and unique to the process.
I'd love to see an example of that.
That sounds perfectly sensible to me. But then I've been fortunate enough to not have to watch my child have seizures and what I've read seems to suggest those parents who have found it to work already tried all known options. They aren't using it as an "alternative remedy" but rather, the best remedy. And here is where we have the disconnect with modern medicine. Science is great. But very few people are putting money into science for the glory of science itself. So, until someone decides to put the time and money into running the clinical trials required. Those parents will commit a federal crime in pursuit of helping their children in the best way they know of.Aaron_K123 wrote: »Try telling the thousands of people who are getting real results treating child seizures with cannabis oil that it's hokum, because it doesn't have approval and a sufficient body of clinical testing evidence.
Honestly i'd probably tell them exactly what you said, that it doesn't have a sufficient body of clinical testing evidence and has not shown to be effective. If they want to use it anyway I'm not going to stop them but I might suggest that they look into what seizure medicines HAVE been clinically tested and shown to be effective and that they might want to at least try those first. I mean, that is sensible right?
Don't get me wrong. I think legality of substances is a huge other topic that really isn't part of this discussion. But Cannabis just happens to be an excellent example of something that is working for many people. And with no support from western medicine. Because Western medicine is bound by it's own bureaucracy.
Do I want people to have safe drugs that work and have been tested and vetted in a scientifically sound manner.. Yes. Do I think people who have days/weeks/months to live should be able to try experimental drugs, lotions, potions or voodoo? Definitely. I'm not saying anything bad about western medicine. I'm simply saying it is silly to even suggest that anything not covered by it is automatically hokum. Because Western medicine is a big business that by it's own admission, does not have all the answers and is discovering new things every day.
Method of extraction of morphine and related derivatives. Patent US 2062324 A
Process for extracting and purifying morphine from opium. Patent US 6054584 A
both are patents for the process of extracting purified extracts from natural sources.
Its actually not that hard to find examples of patents for natural extracts @Fyreside . Have you tried?5 -
@Fyreside How about Taxol, a billion dollar cancer drug. It is a natural extract isolated from Taxus brevifolia, the pacific yew tree). The extraction process was patented and allowed for the production of the drug.
Taxol (also known as palitaxel) was originally trademarked in France in the 1930s but Bristol Myers Squibb was able to purchase the trademark and patent the process for use as an anticancer drug.
At first supply was extremely slow because the patented extraction process from the yew tree was inefficient. Since then additional processes and formulations that made improvements has supplanted that initial patent but doesn't change the fact that the initial patent was for a natural extract from yew trees which they were still using in 1977. There are even pictures of pharma plants with growned up yew bark. They owned the patent on this which is why Taxol was a Bristol Myers Squibb product.
http://www.paclitaxel.org/background.html
9 -
I would just like to point out that if the OP lives in Ontario, she could apply to the government for funding to go to a real university or college and learn proper nutrition and medical information. There is no reason that anyone, especially in Canada should be giving money to this scam school. The fact that it hasnt been shut down actually upsets me as a Canadian and a person who hates *kitten* and lies.16
-
@Fyreside There are literally thousands of examples. It would be a bit silly to keep linking them.
Let me just pose this question to you. If pharma companies were not capable of patenting processes for the derivation of natural extracts for the production of formulated drugs then why on earth would they invest money into it when the product would immediately go generic and they would be competed down to a cost that would not recoup their investment in the development costs.
As you yourself pointed out, plenty of large pharma drugs are derived from natural products and the way they are derived is to extract them and formulate them into a deliverable pill or injection or inhaler or whatever the most effective method is. That takes work.4
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 922 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions