Why the study that showed taking vitamins don't work, is wrong.

1…5678911»

Replies

  • CSARdiver
    CSARdiver Posts: 6,252 Member
    tomatoey wrote: »
    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    tomatoey 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 majority



    tomatoey 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.

    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 needed
    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 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.
  • tomatoey
    tomatoey Posts: 5,459 Member
    edited August 2015
    CSARdiver wrote: »
    tomatoey wrote: »
    FunkyTobias wrote: »
    tomatoey 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 majority



    tomatoey 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.

    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 needed
    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 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)

Categories