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?

1…6791112…28

Replies

  • Fyreside
    Fyreside Posts: 444 Member
    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.
  • Fyreside
    Fyreside Posts: 444 Member
    @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.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    Fyreside wrote: »
    @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.
  • jseams1234
    jseams1234 Posts: 1,219 Member
    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.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    edited October 2017
    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.
  • Fyreside
    Fyreside Posts: 444 Member
    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.
    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?
    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.

    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.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    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.
  • Fyreside
    Fyreside Posts: 444 Member
    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.
  • Aaron_K123
    Aaron_K123 Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited October 2017
    @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.
  • vingogly
    vingogly Posts: 1,785 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    But the advance of medicine and human knowledge is based on observation, experimentation, and recording and comparing results, not just "letting people do what works for them."

    It isn't a contest, but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as accurate information or that medicine is some realm where truth is impossible to determine.

    from a NYT interview with John Caputo, professor of theology and philosophy at Syracuse University:
    I think that what modern philosophers call “pure” reason — the Cartesian ego cogito and Kant’s transcendental consciousness — is a white male Euro-Christian construction.

    White is not “neutral.” “Pure” reason is lily white, as if white is not a color or is closest to the purity of the sun, and everything else is “colored.” Purification is a name for terror and deportation, and “white” is a thick, dense, potent cultural signifier that is closely linked to rationalism and colonialism. What is not white is not rational. So white is philosophically relevant and needs to be philosophically critiqued — it affects what we mean by “reason” — and “we” white philosophers cannot ignore it.

    That's the corruption resulting from an out-of-control postmodernism I mentioned earlier -- it comes from academia, but thanks to the media, we've all been affected by it. The claim of the postmodernists is precisely that "there is no such thing as accurate information". The insistence on observation, experimentation, and recording and comparing results is part of a dominating narrative constructed by white males to maintain their control. Here is the source interview in case you think I'm making this crap up:

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/looking-white-in-the-face/
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    vingogly wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    But the advance of medicine and human knowledge is based on observation, experimentation, and recording and comparing results, not just "letting people do what works for them."

    It isn't a contest, but that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as accurate information or that medicine is some realm where truth is impossible to determine.

    from a NYT interview with John Caputo, professor of theology and philosophy at Syracuse University:
    I think that what modern philosophers call “pure” reason — the Cartesian ego cogito and Kant’s transcendental consciousness — is a white male Euro-Christian construction.

    White is not “neutral.” “Pure” reason is lily white, as if white is not a color or is closest to the purity of the sun, and everything else is “colored.” Purification is a name for terror and deportation, and “white” is a thick, dense, potent cultural signifier that is closely linked to rationalism and colonialism. What is not white is not rational. So white is philosophically relevant and needs to be philosophically critiqued — it affects what we mean by “reason” — and “we” white philosophers cannot ignore it.

    That's the corruption resulting from an out-of-control postmodernism I mentioned earlier -- it comes from academia, but thanks to the media, we've all been affected by it. The claim of the postmodernists is precisely that "there is no such thing as accurate information". The insistence on observation, experimentation, and recording and comparing results is part of a dominating narrative constructed by white males to maintain their control. Here is the source interview in case you think I'm making this crap up:

    https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/looking-white-in-the-face/

    It's what I call pop post-modernism. Very common and damaging, IMO.

    I am not so sure it's really from academia (I had issues with it in academia too). More often I see it from those who probably were not exposed to it in their educations and couldn't tell you any of the sources. But it is prevalent in the pop form.
  • Fyreside
    Fyreside Posts: 444 Member
    @Aaron_K123 & @jseams1234 Thanks for the info. Good reading.
  • 3bambi3
    3bambi3 Posts: 1,650 Member
    fitfreakymom wrote: »
    I will use what works for me and if smoking a plant takes care of my body pain and my head then I will do that before popping a pill made in a lab.

    Good for you. What does this have to do with your assertion that "Big Pharma" is in monetary danger from cannabis use?
This discussion has been closed.

Categories