Why the study that showed taking vitamins don't work, is wrong.
Replies
-
christinev297 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
bang! There it is. Makes perfect sense. The almighty dollar wins again..
And so it goes
I personally get a good result from valerian root tincture (sometimes, depending ) (for sleep)
And I have personally had miracle-like results from hibiscus (before weight loss) to the point where I was asked by my doctor to stop my blood pressure medications. After I lost a lot of weight I am now naturally within normal range without the hibiscus, but it had a notable effect when I did consume it (from an average of 150/110 to an average of 125/85 without medications).0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »It's mostly wrong in it's views and attacks alternative medicine with little knowledge of it.
Also attacks alternative science, alternative chemistry, alternative math, alternative engineering...
You get the idea.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine. It's a real shame.
I'm very fortunate that my periodontist believes in both.
honest question:
Do you consider a 20g Vit. C megadose either "natural" or "alternative"?
I'm quite curious.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
Not every natural remedy is a sham!
Only the overwhelming majorityFunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
You ignore the fact that there has been a plethora of research on nearly every aspect of alternative medicine(homeopathy, acupuncture, vitamin therapy, etc) and the results have almost universally shown that they don't work.
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »
It's mostly wrong in it's views and attacks alternative medicine with little knowledge of it.FunkyTobias wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »
I was joking. I hate that website.FunkyTobias wrote: »There is no evidence to support routine supplementation. There is also reason to avoid taking megadoses of vitamins, as this can cause toxicity, and even short of toxicity the evidence becomes more compelling at higher doses of the risks of supplementation.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-mortality/
Of course you do. It's always debunking the pseudoscientific nonsense you believe in.
Lol
Point to where they are "wrong"
They are wrong about vitamins and probiotics for two things.0 -
I like vitacost.com. They are cheap and good quality.
Name a couple of brands.TheDevastator wrote: »That's why it's important to choose a good brand.
0 -
TheDevastator wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »
It's mostly wrong in it's views and attacks alternative medicine with little knowledge of it.FunkyTobias wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »
I was joking. I hate that website.FunkyTobias wrote: »There is no evidence to support routine supplementation. There is also reason to avoid taking megadoses of vitamins, as this can cause toxicity, and even short of toxicity the evidence becomes more compelling at higher doses of the risks of supplementation.
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/vitamins-and-mortality/
Of course you do. It's always debunking the pseudoscientific nonsense you believe in.
Lol
Point to where they are "wrong"
They are wrong about vitamins and probiotics for two things.
Citation needed.
0 -
andrikosDE wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine. It's a real shame.
I'm very fortunate that my periodontist believes in both.
honest question:
Do you consider a 20g Vit. C megadose either "natural" or "alternative"?
I'm quite curious.
Both.
I took one course of antibiotics. I then was presented with the choice of taking more OR starting a short term course of high dose vit C. Every time I go back for a check up there is improvement, if all goes well at my next one then I can change to 1 yearly appointments instead of every 8 weeks.
if I'm presented with the man made chemical route or it's natural alternative then I'll choose the latter. Also, I'm talking about minor ailments here...
0 -
Agreed, if some quack makes a claim in a book, the FDA won't say anything.TheDevastator wrote: »\TheDevastator wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »
No if would more likely be doctors that want to push a drug with limited training in nutrition and vitamin therapy.FunkyTobias wrote: »
Those people are called "scientists"TheDevastator wrote: »
There are some people that can't believe that a vitamin will do that and it's a shame.christinev297 wrote: »The proof is in the pudding. Since starting the vitC my condition has greatly improved, so much so that the minor surgery that was booked has been cancelled. Also, My skin has never looked better!!
I won't stay on such a high dose forever. If i get the thumbs up at my next visit, then I will start reducing the dosage.
Some hospitals (the good ones) give intravenous vitamin C of high doses.
The book is science based and has a lot of references or else the FDA would be after him.FunkyTobias wrote: »
Better yet, base your decisions on science-based medicine rather than quackeryTheDevastator wrote: »You might want to check out Doctor Yourself by Dr. Andrew Saul. It's a very good book.
Sorry, but the FDA doesn't work like that. Nutritional advice land is nearly regulation free.
No, the FDA will go after you if you say some vitamin cures some disease.
Please cite this regulation. I would love to bring this up at the next RAPS session.
I guess you do have to be selling the vitamins and saying they cure a disease but they will target you if you do. Look it up yourself if you want to bring it up at your meeting.
Quite familiar with these - how I makes my livins. All falls under adpromo regulation and must be preapproved.
As an individual you can say whatever the heck you want. You may impact your credibility and whatever organization licenses you may have something to say about it, but as far as the FDA - not their jurisdiction.
But it does not necessarily have to be the manufacturer making the claim. Strangest IND letter I've ever seen issued from the FDA? Drug Name: Mango Fruit. Researchers wanted to see if it could be used to treat a disease, so the FDA said that in this instance mango qualified as a drug and fell under their jurisdiction. (And it also fell under GMP and GCP regulations as well which was interesting.)0 -
Agreed, if some quack makes a claim in a book, the FDA won't say anything.TheDevastator wrote: »\TheDevastator wrote: »TheDevastator wrote: »
No if would more likely be doctors that want to push a drug with limited training in nutrition and vitamin therapy.FunkyTobias wrote: »
Those people are called "scientists"TheDevastator wrote: »
There are some people that can't believe that a vitamin will do that and it's a shame.christinev297 wrote: »The proof is in the pudding. Since starting the vitC my condition has greatly improved, so much so that the minor surgery that was booked has been cancelled. Also, My skin has never looked better!!
I won't stay on such a high dose forever. If i get the thumbs up at my next visit, then I will start reducing the dosage.
Some hospitals (the good ones) give intravenous vitamin C of high doses.
The book is science based and has a lot of references or else the FDA would be after him.FunkyTobias wrote: »
Better yet, base your decisions on science-based medicine rather than quackeryTheDevastator wrote: »You might want to check out Doctor Yourself by Dr. Andrew Saul. It's a very good book.
Sorry, but the FDA doesn't work like that. Nutritional advice land is nearly regulation free.
No, the FDA will go after you if you say some vitamin cures some disease.
Please cite this regulation. I would love to bring this up at the next RAPS session.
I guess you do have to be selling the vitamins and saying they cure a disease but they will target you if you do. Look it up yourself if you want to bring it up at your meeting.
Quite familiar with these - how I makes my livins. All falls under adpromo regulation and must be preapproved.
As an individual you can say whatever the heck you want. You may impact your credibility and whatever organization licenses you may have something to say about it, but as far as the FDA - not their jurisdiction.
But it does not necessarily have to be the manufacturer making the claim. Strangest IND letter I've ever seen issued from the FDA? Drug Name: Mango Fruit. Researchers wanted to see if it could be used to treat a disease, so the FDA said that in this instance mango qualified as a drug and fell under their jurisdiction. (And it also fell under GMP and GCP regulations as well which was interesting.)
OK this is just awesome - bad policy, but still awesome. I have a very good friend and colleague at CDER and when we go out to grab a drink he has shared some of the crazy submissions throughout the years. The submissions coming from the aesthetics side is just terrifying.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
Also, there isn't any regulation of natural products in most places, so the formulations aren't standardized, and neither are the cultivation and processing that go into different products. Like there might be twenty ways to do "valerian" (different plant varieties, different parts of the plants, different amounts in a given pill, etc etc). Some might have an effect, others might not.
This is a double edged sword - the cost of approval is currently over 4 Billion, so yes, companies want to see a bit of compensation after investing 4B to make sure the product is safe and effective.
As for regulation of natural products, the process can be standardized; however due to variation in the product the research demands by regulatory bodies is absurd (you have to remove potential of harm, including misuse) and prohibitively expensive. Essentially the regulators will not sign off on release if there is the slightest chance of bad publicity.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine. It's a real shame.
I'm very fortunate that my periodontist believes in both.
You can. "Scientists" do research on these things. But, "scientists" know that years of repeatable research is required to establish consensus. And in the meantime, there are 100 woo artists advocating nonsense for every scientist doing real research, and 1000 others not taking the time to distinguish between the two. 0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
Not every natural remedy is a sham!
Only the overwhelming majorityFunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
You ignore the fact that there has been a plethora of research on nearly every aspect of alternative medicine(homeopathy, acupuncture, vitamin therapy, etc) and the results have almost universally shown that they don't work.
Very science-minded of you to lump all of that together. Come on - homeopathy =/= acupuncture (which, particularly electroacupuncture, has actually been found to have analgesic effects). It's by no means true that studies on all these very separate phenomena have come to anything like a "universal" consensus (or that there's been a "plethora" of research). Things like certain green tea extracts, among other natural compounds, have been looked at seriously.
Why is it so crazy to imagine that things found in nature have potential to be effective as medications? I mean where, other than on earth (in "nature"), are you going to find the stuff for drugs anyway?
Wikipedia's history of aspirin0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
Also, there isn't any regulation of natural products in most places, so the formulations aren't standardized, and neither are the cultivation and processing that go into different products. Like there might be twenty ways to do "valerian" (different plant varieties, different parts of the plants, different amounts in a given pill, etc etc). Some might have an effect, others might not.
This is a double edged sword - the cost of approval is currently over 4 Billion, so yes, companies want to see a bit of compensation after investing 4B to make sure the product is safe and effective.
As for regulation of natural products, the process can be standardized; however due to variation in the product the research demands by regulatory bodies is absurd (you have to remove potential of harm, including misuse) and prohibitively expensive. Essentially the regulators will not sign off on release if there is the slightest chance of bad publicity.
Yeah, this makes sense.0 -
christinev297 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
bang! There it is. Makes perfect sense. The almighty dollar wins again..
And so it goes
I personally get a good result from valerian root tincture (sometimes, depending ) (for sleep)
It's not nearly as difficult as you seem to think.
All you need is a scientist with a good reputation and some skill at getting grants approved. Where I work, there's a clinical trial starting now to investigate claims that a nutritional drink that is commonly used in China ameliorates symptoms of chemotherapy. There's also a fairly well known researcher who regularly studies the effects of cucurmin (effective component of turmeric) on colon cancer and has published several papers on the subject in good journals.
The problem is that the alternative medicine/folkremedies are mostly woo. Only a small percentage that's investigated turns out to be useful, and even that is often low efficacy. And there's no way to sort out the wheat from the chaff without some kind of controlled study. But it does happen - anyone who claims all alternative medicine is garbage is wrong.0 -
0
-
FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
Not every natural remedy is a sham!
Only the overwhelming majorityFunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
You ignore the fact that there has been a plethora of research on nearly every aspect of alternative medicine(homeopathy, acupuncture, vitamin therapy, etc) and the results have almost universally shown that they don't work.
Very science-minded of you to lump all of that together. Come on - homeopathy =/= acupuncture (which, particularly electroacupuncture, has actually been found to have analgesic effects).
Citation neededIt's by no means true that studies on all these very separate phenomena have come to anything like a "universal" consensus (or that there's been a "plethora" of research). Things like certain green tea extracts, among other natural compounds, have been looked at seriously.
Why is it so crazy to imagine that things found in nature have potential to be effective as medications? I mean where, other than on earth (in "nature"), are you going to find the stuff for drugs anyway?
Wikipedia's history of aspirin
Nobody claimed that certain naturally occurring substances have medicinal properties. The difference between alternative medicine and real medicine is the approach.
Alternative medicine:
"Herb X has been used for thousands of years to treat Y, therefore prescribe"
Real medicine:
"Herb X has been claimed to be effective in treating Y.
Test X in repeated double blind placebo controlled trials.
If effective, determine active ingredient.
Test. Determine safe effective dosage.
Then, and only then, prescribe"
See the difference?
0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
Not every natural remedy is a sham!
Only the overwhelming majorityFunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
You ignore the fact that there has been a plethora of research on nearly every aspect of alternative medicine(homeopathy, acupuncture, vitamin therapy, etc) and the results have almost universally shown that they don't work.
Very science-minded of you to lump all of that together. Come on - homeopathy =/= acupuncture (which, particularly electroacupuncture, has actually been found to have analgesic effects).
Citation neededIt's by no means true that studies on all these very separate phenomena have come to anything like a "universal" consensus (or that there's been a "plethora" of research). Things like certain green tea extracts, among other natural compounds, have been looked at seriously.
Why is it so crazy to imagine that things found in nature have potential to be effective as medications? I mean where, other than on earth (in "nature"), are you going to find the stuff for drugs anyway?
Wikipedia's history of aspirin
Nobody claimed that certain naturally occurring substances have medicinal properties. The difference between alternative medicine and real medicine is the approach.
Alternative medicine:
"Herb X has been used for thousands of years to treat Y, therefore prescribe"
Real medicine:
"Herb X has been claimed to be effective in treating Y.
Test X in repeated double blind placebo controlled trials.
If effective, determine active ingredient.
Test. Determine safe effective dosage.
Then, and only then, prescribe"
See the difference?
You're hilarious. Yes, I see the difference, of course.
Not for nothing but "real medicine" also involves things like: do 12 weeks of trials, fast-track approval via lobbyists and deals, release to market, assault/woo overworked MDs with aggressive sales reps and shady "continuing education", wait for ten years of adverse effects reporting and a few tragedies to amend black box warnings on or pull drug
To me, thinking scientifically = balancing open-mindedness and skepticism regardless of the phenom0 -
I would never stop taking my vites! Multi with folic acid, vitamin d, biotin complex, and I just started a probiotic, results have been awesome. If I don't take them I notice the difference.
How can you be sure placebo doesn't play into it? It's a pretty strong effect. You need to do a double blind study for yourself and see if you actually notice a difference or not.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
Not every natural remedy is a sham!
Only the overwhelming majorityFunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
You ignore the fact that there has been a plethora of research on nearly every aspect of alternative medicine(homeopathy, acupuncture, vitamin therapy, etc) and the results have almost universally shown that they don't work.
Very science-minded of you to lump all of that together. Come on - homeopathy =/= acupuncture (which, particularly electroacupuncture, has actually been found to have analgesic effects).
Citation neededIt's by no means true that studies on all these very separate phenomena have come to anything like a "universal" consensus (or that there's been a "plethora" of research). Things like certain green tea extracts, among other natural compounds, have been looked at seriously.
Why is it so crazy to imagine that things found in nature have potential to be effective as medications? I mean where, other than on earth (in "nature"), are you going to find the stuff for drugs anyway?
Wikipedia's history of aspirin
Nobody claimed that certain naturally occurring substances have medicinal properties. The difference between alternative medicine and real medicine is the approach.
Alternative medicine:
"Herb X has been used for thousands of years to treat Y, therefore prescribe"
Real medicine:
"Herb X has been claimed to be effective in treating Y.
Test X in repeated double blind placebo controlled trials.
If effective, determine active ingredient.
Test. Determine safe effective dosage.
Then, and only then, prescribe"
See the difference?
You're hilarious. Yes, I see the difference, of course.
Not for nothing but "real medicine" also involves things like: do 12 weeks of trials, fast-track approval via lobbyists and deals, release to market, assault/woo overworked MDs with aggressive sales reps and shady "continuing education", wait for ten years of adverse effects reporting and a few tragedies to amend black box warnings on or pull drug
To me, thinking scientifically = balancing open-mindedness and skepticism regardless of the phenom
And no, I am not going to be wasting my afternoon playing citation wars with you, sorry. Look it up.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
Not every natural remedy is a sham!
Only the overwhelming majorityFunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
You ignore the fact that there has been a plethora of research on nearly every aspect of alternative medicine(homeopathy, acupuncture, vitamin therapy, etc) and the results have almost universally shown that they don't work.
Very science-minded of you to lump all of that together. Come on - homeopathy =/= acupuncture (which, particularly electroacupuncture, has actually been found to have analgesic effects).
Citation neededIt's by no means true that studies on all these very separate phenomena have come to anything like a "universal" consensus (or that there's been a "plethora" of research). Things like certain green tea extracts, among other natural compounds, have been looked at seriously.
Why is it so crazy to imagine that things found in nature have potential to be effective as medications? I mean where, other than on earth (in "nature"), are you going to find the stuff for drugs anyway?
Wikipedia's history of aspirin
Nobody claimed that certain naturally occurring substances have medicinal properties. The difference between alternative medicine and real medicine is the approach.
Alternative medicine:
"Herb X has been used for thousands of years to treat Y, therefore prescribe"
Real medicine:
"Herb X has been claimed to be effective in treating Y.
Test X in repeated double blind placebo controlled trials.
If effective, determine active ingredient.
Test. Determine safe effective dosage.
Then, and only then, prescribe"
See the difference?
You're hilarious. Yes, I see the difference, of course.
Not for nothing but "real medicine" also involves things like: do 12 weeks of trials, fast-track approval via lobbyists and deals, release to market, assault/woo overworked MDs with aggressive sales reps and shady "continuing education", wait for ten years of adverse effects reporting and a few tragedies to amend black box warnings on or pull drug
To me, thinking scientifically = balancing open-mindedness and skepticism regardless of the phenom
Do you apply this same level of skepticism towards the alternative medicine industry? Noting that the vast majority of this industry are subsidiaries of pharmaceutical companies. Many use the profits generated through nutritional/supplemental to fund research projects in pharma as the profit margin in supplements is so much greater.0 -
FunkyTobias wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »FunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
Not every natural remedy is a sham!
Only the overwhelming majorityFunkyTobias wrote: »christinev297 wrote: »I don't think you'll find a "scientist" anywhere who will advocate for natural/alternate medicine.
Hmmmm, I wonder why?It's a real shame.
Quite the opposite.
It's because a lot of that stuff isn't patentable, so it's not worth it to big companies to spend money on the research. When an idea shows promise, and they think they can find an angle (some way of tweaking the product to make it patentable), research is more likely to happen.
You ignore the fact that there has been a plethora of research on nearly every aspect of alternative medicine(homeopathy, acupuncture, vitamin therapy, etc) and the results have almost universally shown that they don't work.
Very science-minded of you to lump all of that together. Come on - homeopathy =/= acupuncture (which, particularly electroacupuncture, has actually been found to have analgesic effects).
Citation neededIt's by no means true that studies on all these very separate phenomena have come to anything like a "universal" consensus (or that there's been a "plethora" of research). Things like certain green tea extracts, among other natural compounds, have been looked at seriously.
Why is it so crazy to imagine that things found in nature have potential to be effective as medications? I mean where, other than on earth (in "nature"), are you going to find the stuff for drugs anyway?
Wikipedia's history of aspirin
Nobody claimed that certain naturally occurring substances have medicinal properties. The difference between alternative medicine and real medicine is the approach.
Alternative medicine:
"Herb X has been used for thousands of years to treat Y, therefore prescribe"
Real medicine:
"Herb X has been claimed to be effective in treating Y.
Test X in repeated double blind placebo controlled trials.
If effective, determine active ingredient.
Test. Determine safe effective dosage.
Then, and only then, prescribe"
See the difference?
You're hilarious. Yes, I see the difference, of course.
Not for nothing but "real medicine" also involves things like: do 12 weeks of trials, fast-track approval via lobbyists and deals, release to market, assault/woo overworked MDs with aggressive sales reps and shady "continuing education", wait for ten years of adverse effects reporting and a few tragedies to amend black box warnings on or pull drug
To me, thinking scientifically = balancing open-mindedness and skepticism regardless of the phenom
Do you apply this same level of skepticism towards the alternative medicine industry? Noting that the vast majority of this industry are subsidiaries of pharmaceutical companies. Many use the profits generated through nutritional/supplemental to fund research projects in pharma as the profit margin in supplements is so much greater.
Yes, I do, absolutely (probably more so)
Like I am obviously not a scientist, but I do my best to learn what I can about things that might go into my body, as time permits
Re alternative medicine - I do try things out now and then if they seem to make some kind of sense based on what's known, i can afford the cost, and the harms appear to be negligible
eg here's where i'm at with various possibly wooey things
- homeopathy really looks like a bunch of hoo-ha from what i can determine
- electroacupuncture looks like it could be useful for some things, regular acupuncture, probably not so much
- chrondoitin sulfate (vs hydrochloride, which doesn't seem to work at all) - inconclusive, but willing to waste some cash on the off-chance there might be a marginal benefit for OA-related pain (doing so in full knowledge it may well not make a difference)0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGuXCuDb1U
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions