Is natural medicine being suppressed?

indough

how are yield and expense not relevant anyway? not everyone can afford organic food, plus its better all round that we grow as much in this country as we possibly can

bonkey

Samson09 infracted

bonkey

Getting back to the original topic...

samson09 wrote: »

If there was ample scientific evidence to prove this then we wouldnt be having this discussion.

Surely it should be the other way around?

Doctors should base their recommendations and practices on the best scientific evidence available. That they are not recommending something that you readily admit is not backed by ample scientific evidence is, therefore, perfectly correct behaviour on their part.

Doctors cannot be given information that doesn't exist. If there isn't ample scientific research on the topic - as you have claimed - then there is nothing being kept from the doctors. I don't know about you, but I don't want my primary care-givers basing their medical advice on anything less than the best scientific, evidence-based research. If we cross that line, its tantamount to allowing opinion and anecdote form the basis of health-care.

Also, I think part of the reason people have objected to your claims here is that you have, on one hand, accused the medical community of information-suppression, and on the other hand stated that you don't believe that doctors are actually suppressing the information...that it is being kept from them as well. Doctors and other primary-care givers, however, would form the vast, vast majority of the medical community....so perhaps you should consider being more specific in who you're blaming.

I would also point out that a GP is just that - a General Practitioner. If I want someone who is an expert on something, I go to an expert. I would expect a GP to be able to handle the "general" case, and to refer me to an expert If I want to know about the full range of possibilities for a specific condition. Pointing out (as you did) that a GP isn't an expert in this field or that field is, therefore, also somewhat misleading....they're not (and should't be) expected to be experts in every medical field.

Utimately, though, I think that what you're suggesting is that there is some sort of orchestrated effort to prevent research taking place, which is why there isn't ample scientific evidence supporting the claims that you obviously believe.

If so, then I would ask whether or not there is evidence supporting that...indications that trials have been refused funding, or shut down, or successfully completed and their findings buried?

I'm no expert, but my understanding was that there's quite a lot of research going on with respect to type 2 diabetes, its ultimate causes, etc. If there was suppression at the level your argument suggests, then wouldn't one expect to be able to find evidence (perhaps from a meta-analysis of the studies performed or ongoing) that research in a specific direction was opposed or suppressed.

espinolman

6th wrote: »

Lads, lets read the thread title again and stick on topic.

I think what is being discussed is on topic because it relates to nutritional therapy - and it is to do with natural medicine .

bleg

bonkey wrote: »

Doctors should base their recommendations and practices on the best scientific evidence available. That they are not recommending something that you readily admit is not backed by ample scientific evidence is, therefore, perfectly correct behaviour on their part.

Doctors cannot be given information that doesn't exist. If there isn't ample scientific research on the topic - as you have claimed - then there is nothing being kept from the doctors. I don't know about you, but I don't want my primary care-givers basing their medical advice on anything less than the best scientific, evidence-based research. If we cross that line, its tantamount to allowing opinion and anecdote form the basis of health-care.

Exactly, if i give out the incorrect drug/dose I can be subject to litigation. I want to give people something that's actually going to help them and something that is proven to do so.
I want to help patients, it would be of no benefit to me whatsoever if i suppressed one form of medicine in favour of another. The real reason phytopharmaceuticals are not used commonly is because they simply are not as effective as properly produced pharmaceuticals. Not because of any sinister plot by me or my fellow health professionals to suppress other medication types.

bonkey

bleg wrote: »

Exactly, if i give out the incorrect drug/dose I can be subject to litigation. I want to give people something that's actually going to help them and something that is proven to do so.
I want to help patients, it would be of no benefit to me whatsoever if i suppressed one form of medicine in favour of another. The real reason phytopharmaceuticals are not used commonly is because they simply are not as effective as properly produced pharmaceuticals. Not because of any sinister plot by me or my fellow health professionals to suppress other medication types.

That's not quite what I said.

samson09 suggested there is a lack of scientific evidence. I argued that if this is correct, then doctor's shouldn't t give out or recommend remedies because of the lack of evidence.

To not give them out because they are inferior or don't work suggests that the evidence is there, but that it doesn't support the claims made.

I know it may seem like splitting hairs to some, but its an important distinction to make, I feel.

The whole field of "natural medicine" cannot be taken as a whole in this regard. Some of it has been studied sufficiently to draw conclusions, but much of it has not. I think its important to note that distinction whilst also making clear that under the principle of evidence-based medicine, only treatment which has been studied sufficiently and found to be effective should be (normally) advocated.

In that respect, its entirely possible that some of the claims made about alternative medicine are indeed completely accurate. This possibility, however, isn't sufficient reason for the "medical community" that samson09 refers to to advocate them. If there is a lack of scientific data, then it is perfectly correct that they not be advocated.

In this sense, one could say that there is indeed a conspiracy - the medical community conspire to base their stance on evidence-based research. Given that this approach to medicine is largely responsible for what we might call the medical community being as successful as it is, its hard to argue for a return to the type of opinion-based medicine which came beforehand.

samson09

bonkey wrote: »

Also, I think part of the reason people have objected to your claims here is that you have, on one hand, accused the medical community of information-suppression, and on the other hand stated that you don't believe that doctors are actually suppressing the information...that it is being kept from them as well. Doctors and other primary-care givers, however, would form the vast, vast majority of the medical community....so perhaps you should consider being more specific in who you're blaming.

Ok, I appreciate the fact that this is confusing and how it sounds like I'm contradicting myself. I dont believe doctors would suppress this kind of information, nor would any primary care givers. The information I'm generally referring to here is that the vast majority of modern day "diseases" (such as cancer, diabetes,COPD,asthma,depression,etc ) can be dealt with more successfully using a whole range of natural remedies including but not limited to nutrition, herbal medicine, acupuncture and homeopathy. I do not know where to point the finger of blame at, but I suspect that it is a group/organisation that is higher up the proverbial food chain of modern medicine. I believe there is a vast element of corruption involved and that the list of probable suspects would include numerous high ranking officials of large multi national pharmaceutical companies. I would suspect that members/owners of major banking institutions are also involved.

Thats about as specific as I can get.

I dont expect people to take my word for granted. I encourage anyone reading this to delve deeper and to start thinking for themselves.

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

The information I'm generally referring to here is that the vast majority of modern day "diseases" (such as cancer, diabetes,COPD,asthma,depression,etc ) can be dealt with more successfully using a whole range of natural remedies including but not limited to nutrition, herbal medicine, acupuncture and homeopathy.

No they can't.
Both homeopathy and acupunture has been shown again and again and again to be no more effective than a placebo.
And it's been conclusively shown that the claimed mechanisms for both (chi and water memory) are completely baseless.

There is nothing to show that they are "more successful".

How exactly can you make this claim without double blinded testing?
How can you exclude the other possibilities and what leads you to conclude that they are more effective?

bonkey

samson09 wrote: »

OThe information I'm generally referring to here is that the vast majority of modern day "diseases" (such as cancer, diabetes,COPD,asthma,depression,etc ) can be dealt with more successfully using a whole range of natural remedies including but not limited to nutrition, herbal medicine, acupuncture and homeopathy.

You've said that there isn't scientific evidence supporting these claims, so at best what you can say is that this is a belief you hold, which is not supported by scientific evidence.

As has also been pointed out, where scientific studies have been carried out, they have rarely produced results in support of your claim.

I dont expect people to take my word for granted. I encourage anyone reading this to delve deeper and to start thinking for themselves.

"Trick or Treatment" was an interesting read, I thought (although I thought the authors undermined themselves at times). The authors set out to examine the case for evidence-based medicine, and then to look at what this approach to medicine has concluded about those aspects of "natural medicine" that have been looked at.

For people with no formal background, and/or no access to where the studies are published, its not bad as a layman's summary.

bleg

samson09 wrote: »

The information I'm generally referring to here is that the vast majority of modern day "diseases" (such as cancer, diabetes,COPD,asthma,depression,etc ) can be dealt with more successfully using a whole range of natural remedies including but not limited to nutrition, herbal medicine, acupuncture and homeopathy.

What you are saying here is actually dangerous. I hope nobody takes you seriously and does themselves harm.

I'm out.

espinolman

Why is natural medicine being suppressed ?

Would there be vested reasons for suppressing it !

Who has vested interests in illness ?

2Scoops

espinolman wrote: »

Why is natural medicine being suppressed ?

That's assuming it is being suppressed! That hasn't been established.

espinolman wrote: »

Would there be vested reasons for suppressing it !

From a public health and consumer protection standpoint, there would be substantial interest in suppressing alleged treatments that don't work. If they do work and have an evidence base, they should not be suppressed. But are any proven treatments actively suppressed?

espinolman wrote: »

Who has vested interests in illness ?

Big Pharma - oh noes!

ECOLOGICAL

i must say great topic to raise so true its all about money they (pharm monster ) would prefer pump our kids with vaccines that suppress immune system rather than promote free preventive herbal medicine
it always was and still is about money

2Scoops

ECOLOGICAL wrote: »

they (pharm monster ) would prefer pump our kids with vaccines that suppress immune system rather than promote free preventive herbal medicine

What vaccines suppress the immune system and what are the free preventive herbal medicines?

megmeg

espinolman wrote: »

Why is natural medicine being suppressed ?

Would there be vested reasons for suppressing it !

Who has vested interests in illness ?

I am watching this thread, and I can only see one person, maybie two who is genuinely looking into this, this is not up for debate, and is very serious.

Please google Ian R Crane codex alimentarius, Dr Len Horowitz codex alimentarius. These men are doing us a service, and they can answer everyone's questions here with EVIDENCE to back up their claims.

If you are genuinely interested and are not just looking for an argument on this thread, please for the love of, do some research.

I do not mean to offend in any way, but unfortunately I have had to, to be heard.

megmeg

2Scoops wrote: »

What vaccines suppress the immune system and what are the free preventive herbal medicines?

It is my belief they ALL supress the immune system.
Google Dr Len Horowits on vaccines. There is too much information to post.:)

espinolman

megmeg wrote: »

I am watching this thread, and I can only see one person, maybie two who is genuinely looking into this, this is not up for debate, and is very serious.

This is a discussion forum , it is not the serious forum , who says this is not up for debate , of course those who suppress natural medicine don't want us discussing this , part of a discussion is asking questions .

bonkey

megmeg wrote: »

I am watching this thread, and I can only see one person, maybie two who is genuinely looking into this,

With respect, it seems that you're defining "is genuinely looking into this" as meaning "agrees with me".

this is not up for debate, and is very serious.

It should be up for debate.

THe more serious any topic is, the more it should be up for debate. No serious topic should be exempt from debate, and subject only to one-sided information.

If you are genuinely interested and are not just looking for an argument on this thread, please for the love of, do some research.

I agree completely, but here's the thing...I'd advocate that people research both sets of arguments, rather than just those giving a pro- or contra- perspective.

Read about both sides. Read what they have to say about each other.

King Mob

megmeg wrote: »

It is my belief they ALL supress the immune system.
Google Dr Len Horowits on vaccines. There is too much information to post.:)

No that's the exact opposite of what vaccines do.

I think this is the real "conspiracy": lack of scientific/medical knowledge in the general public.

2Scoops

megmeg wrote: »

Please google Ian R Crane codex alimentarius, Dr Len Horowitz codex alimentarius.

I note with interest that these gentlemen are making a nice bit of cash with their for-profit conspiracy exposing business.

megmeg wrote: »

It is my belief they ALL supress the immune system.

Why do you believe that?

6th

Just a reminder of a section of the charter:

• Claims, Evidence, Proof
If you are stating something as fact please post your sources or any relevant links/info. Doing so will strengthen your point. Where someone states something as their opinion it is just that, an opinion. Asking "why" they believe something if fine, demanding proof/evidence is not.

tallaght01

2Scoops wrote: »

Why do you believe that?

I'd be interested in hearing this, too.

Why don't you tell us what the evidence is for vaccines reducing immunity (as opposed to just saying "Dr So and so say, because almost all doctors will tell you the opposite). Tell us what he says, and WHY it's better evidence than the overwhelming majority of studies that show vaccines increase immunity against those diseases they target.

rubadub

bonkey wrote: »

Alternate medicine is a multi-billion dollar industry, worldwide.

How, exactly, does that qualify as being "suppressed"?

I don't follow that logic. It could still be suppressed and could have the potential to be an even bigger industry. Herbalism is certainly suppressed by the laws often introduced to protect current vested interests. e.g cannabis as an herbal alternative to alcohol or pharmaceuticals which people currently self prescribe for recreational use or as a "night cap" or general stress relief. Cannabis also has many other medicinal uses.

St. Johns Wort was changed to prescription only recently enough. Psilocybin containing mushrooms were banned outright. The mushrooms have several uses in medicine, the most publicised one due to its extremely good results is in the treatment of clusterheadaches (aka suicide headaches since sufferers often commit suicide as a way out).

Dr. Peter Goadsby, Professor of Clinical Neurology at University College London, a leading researcher on the condition has commented, “Cluster headache is probably the worst pain that humans experience. I know that’s quite a strong remark to make, but if you ask a cluster headache patient if they’ve had a worse experience, they’ll universally say they haven’t. Women with cluster headache will tell you that an attack is worse than giving birth. So you can imagine that these people give birth without anesthetic once or twice a day, for six, eight or ten weeks at a time, and then have a break. It’s just awful.”

The current pharmaceutical treatment for clusterheadaches is very expensive and sufferers simply cannot afford it. http://www.clusterbusters.com/

Many pose a huge financial threat to the pharmaceutical and recreational drug industry.

LSD was used to treat alcoholism, and also has similar effects on treatment of clusterheadaches. Most hallucinogenic drugs act in similar ways and can be used to treat the same ailments such as psoriasis.

Due to legal restrictions many researchers are not even allowed to have studies with these drugs. Some will continue to do it at risk of the law anonymously. http://www.maps.org/

And even if some other drugs are just placebos, is that such a bad thing? placebos can be effective.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

A study of Danish general practitioners found that 48% had prescribed a placebo at least 10 times in the past year. The most frequently prescribed placebos were antibiotics for viral infections, and vitamins for fatigue. Specialists and hospital-based physicians reported much lower rates of placebo use. A 2004 study in the British Medical Journal of physicians in Israel found that 60% used placebos in their medical practice, most commonly to "fend off" requests for unjustified medications or to calm a patient.

bonkey

rubadub wrote: »

I don't follow that logic.

It was a question, not an assertion, particularly linked to the claim that there is an agenda of "misinformation" being spread about it. The OP showed no such agenda, gave an example of how one nation (the one I live in, coincidentally) recently added these allegedly-suppressed options to its basic health coverage, and is referring to an industry which by any measure is massive, I wanted to understand where the suppression was.

Herbalism is certainly suppressed by the laws often introduced to protect current vested interests. e.g cannabis as an herbal alternative to alcohol or pharmaceuticals which people currently self prescribe for recreational use or as a "night cap" or general stress relief. Cannabis also has many other medicinal uses.

With respect, thats an example of how a single substance is being suppressed, not how an entire field (herbalism) is, nor indeed, how a "meta field" (natural medicine) is.

The entire distinction between so-called conventional medicine and "natural" medicine is, to begin with, mostly artificial. Conventional medicine is evidence-based. The substances it uses are, at times, natural. There are substances and techniques which would previously have been considered "alternate" which would now be considered "conventional" purely and solely because the evidence-based approach has shown the to be effective.

If we exclude this "crossover" area (which would include both cannabis and St. John's Wort), and look only at the areas and techniques which are unique to "natural" medicine and "conventional", we see the distinction is clear.

Conventional medicine is based on evidence-based analysis, in the form of properly-conducted trials which repeatedly show the efficacy of an approach. Approaches and substances are re-evaluated on a more-or-less constant basis, and what was believed to be safe or effective yesterday could be set aside today if a review of the evidence showed such a move to be merited.

Alternate medicine, on the other hand, is based on anything else...and is somehow considered by many to be proof against any evidence that it is unsafe or ineffective.

And even if some other drugs are just placebos, is that such a bad thing? placebos can be effective.

Yes, it is a bad thing.

For a start, the placebo effect is a benefit that should be received from all medical care. Thus, a useless piece of snake-oil plus placebo is still less effective then something shown to be safe and effective with the same placebo effect on top. (A docor who can't provide the placebo effect to his patients should consider pathology)

In addition, I for one want to be able to trust the medical practitioners to whom I go to for help. If they know something is useless but that they can sell it to me for the placebo effect, then they are lying to me. Regardless of their reasons or intentions, I believe that the principle of informed consent is a critical cornerstone of effective medicine. If I know a doctor can lie to me to sell me the treatment they want to give me, how does that help?

This criticism regarding a lack of honest doesn't, of course, apply to someone who genuinely and honesty believes that what they are offering as treatment is effective. But that doesn't help me. If the substance is a placebo, then why doesn't the person treating me know this? If the evidence says repeatedly that its not a placebo, then its reasonable for them to accept the evidence. If its just marketing and belief which says so, but repeated testing (properly carried out) says that it is nothing but a placebo...then we're back to the question of honesty again.

Modern medicine emerged when belief took second place to evidence. Mortality rates plummeted, as did literally every negative aspect of medicine.

So yes...a placebo is a bad thing, unless its a case where the best evidence available has misled everyone...in which case no-one knows its a placebo. But where someone lies to me, or where someone puts belief in front of evidence...its a recipe for disaster.

rubadub

bonkey wrote: »

you'll provisionally agree that if alternate medicine is a multi-billion dollar industry, then this would show that its not being suppressed.

If you're not going to accept that argument even if I provide the information, then I'm not sure I can see any point in me doing so.

I would not accept that argument. I do not see how the amount of money being spent on something shows it is not being suppressed. I just don't see the logic. Cannabis is suppressed and is yet a multi-billion dollar industry, and would be even bigger if legalised.

bonkey wrote: »

With respect, thats an example of how a single substance is being suppressed, not how an entire field (herbalism) is, nor indeed, how a "meta field" (natural medicine) is.

It is one substance of many, I mentioned psilocybin mushrooms, another for cluster headaches would be mescaline containing cacti. I am pointing out that the law has been used to suppress the use, and more importantly the study, of many natural medicines and potential ones. TBH it is the only side of "natural medicine" that I have a real interest in. I am not saying all the laws were put in place for the sole purpose of suppressing natural medicine on the whole, but their existence does attach a stigma.

bonkey wrote: »

Conventional medicine is based on evidence-based analysis, in the form of properly-conducted trials which repeatedly show the efficacy of an approach. Approaches and substances are re-evaluated on a more-or-less constant basis, and what was believed to be safe or effective yesterday could be set aside today if a review of the evidence showed such a move to be merited.

Many natural medicines cannot be studied in some countries since it is illegal to do so, and so research is not ongoing at the pace it could. Even in countries where it is legal to do so many doctors will distance themselves from such substances due to their illegality in other countries. When many plant based natural recreational drugs do become more available the first question asked by many is "how is that legal?", this is an inherent stigma attached with them. This stigma also seems to passover into non-recreational medicinal plants, it might be light-hearted but I have heard bias from many people, e.g. "shes on that dodgy green tea stuff. Christ knows whats in it".

The bizarre propaganda associated with the likes of cannabis & psilocybin would put many people off using them for medicinal reasons, even if they were re-legalised.

Even if legal with no stigma attached I expect many pharmaceutical companies would not want to study a simple plant as a remedy, they could not control such a substance. e.g. cannabis & mushrooms are easily cultivated at a fraction of the cost what drugs cost to cure similar ailments which they could cure. Cannabis poses a huge risk to the paper trade and alcohol trade and petrochemical industry. I am sure the companies producing clusterheadache drugs are not pleased that sufferers can receive free or cheap medication which is far more effective than theirs.

bonkey wrote: »

Thus, a useless piece of snake-oil plus placebo is still less effective then something shown to be safe and effective with the same placebo effect on top.

And so "safe snake oil" + placebo would be better than nothing at all. Maybe these doctors do consider some substances safe and benign and so prescribe them solely for the placebo effect. Since it seems common enough in conventional medicine I expect many practising natural medicine will do the same thing.

But I do accept it is wrong if the supplier knows the substance has no medicinal qualities whatsoever, i.e. the pills prescribed by the doctors as placebos will have medicinal uses for other patients. I can understand doctors telling "white lies".

bonkey wrote: »

If they know something is useless but that they can sell it to me for the placebo effect, then they are lying to me. Regardless of their reasons or intentions, I believe that the principle of informed consent is a critical cornerstone of effective medicine. If I know a doctor can lie to me to sell me the treatment they want to give me, how does that help?

It helps because it could potentially cure you. The myth that you should not drink alcohol while on antibiotics has survived to this day. This myth originated from doctors lying to patients "for their own good". Sailors would contract venereal diseases and be put on antibiotics and warned not to drink on it as it would reduce its effect. This was a lie, the real reason was to stop uninhibited drunken sailors spreading the sexual diseases.

The wikipedia link talks of this issue of doctor-patient trust and the doctors oath.

If the substance is a placebo, then why doesn't the person treating me know this? If the evidence says repeatedly that its not a placebo, then its reasonable for them to accept the evidence. If its just marketing and belief which says so, but repeated testing (properly carried out) says that it is nothing but a placebo...then we're back to the question of honesty again.

Yes, I would agree that is a problem, especially as it seems placebo effects do not effect everybody anyway. So people maybe foregoing conventional medicine in favour of placebos. There are often serious flaws in medical studies too, it could be basic ignorance or intentional "debunking" where there could be a vested interest.

Tribulus is a plant which is said to increase libido & sports performance, it was said this was due to increased testosterone, but then studies showed it does not cause an increase in testosterone so then many say it is proven to "not work". But all they tested for was increased testosterone, it could have been some other action causing it, possibly something unknown to science at present.

Ronanc1

As dawkins said "if alternative medicine worked it wouldnt be called "alternative" itd be accepted by all medical and healthcare institutions everywhere as well as implemented but it isnt, medicine either works or it doesnt and the ones that dont are the "alternates"

3greenrizla's

bleg wrote: »

Exactly, if i give out the incorrect drug/dose I can be subject to litigation....

I presume you are a Dr & if so have you ever uttered the words "we will try...."

there are many examples of "straight" medicine getting it wrong, one week my (good) GP was telling me I could take 4-6 Musilid (sp?) a day, the next week the drug was off the market having been linked to liver failure.

then there is the case of a close friend who was prescribed anti-depressants as her GP thought her chronic kidney complaint was in her head.

However Alternative medicine is not the answer to everything either, for example a chiropractor can treat a lot of back pain very effectively, but in the case of my specific condition can cause more harm.

another example is that of my friend who's kidney complaint/pain was somewhat controlled by acupuncture, and eventually cured by surgery. (and my condition is controlled by very high-tech medication)

I don't really think alternative therapies are being suppressed, i mean most large towns have a Dr Herb's, Chiropractor, acupuncturist or health food shop, and you can claim for expenses through VHI (and i think PRSI)

I do think however that it would be rare for a GP to reccomend a chiropractor/acupuncturist (and Visa Versa actually).

I do believe that the drug companies want to get rid of alternative medicine as I understand it is pretty hard to patent a plant, and there is more money in chemicals. The drug companies put a lot of money into developing drugs, and putting them through trials, which prove their scientific credentials, it is not in their interest to confirm that a plant someone can grow on the windowsill is just (or nearly) as good as what they have on offer.

bonkey wrote: »

I agree completely, but here's the thing...I'd advocate that people research both sets of arguments, rather than just those giving a pro- or contra- perspective.

Read about both sides. Read what they have to say about each other.

I might use that as my sig, if only everyone stopped to look at all sides every now and again.

Personally (as you might have noticed) my stance is a little from column A and a little from column B.

bonkey wrote: »

If we exclude this "crossover" area (which would include both cannabis and St. John's Wort), and look only at the areas and techniques which are unique to "natural" medicine and "conventional", we see the distinction is clear.

Ah bonkey, with that one paragraph you let yourself down, why are Cannabis and St John's Wort in a crossover area either they are natural or they are not. do you want to exclude these as there have been substantial trials on both and they have both proved to be effective?

whilst on the point of Cannabis, what do you all think of this injustice?
http://www.galwayindependent.com/local-news/local-news/ms-sufferer,-stopped-from-entering-country,-slams-local-tds/

3greenrizla's

Ronanc1 wrote: »

As dawkins said "if alternative medicine worked it wouldnt be called "alternative" itd be accepted by all medical and healthcare institutions everywhere as well as implemented but it isnt, medicine either works or it doesnt and the ones that dont are the "alternates"

which leads to the question......

In China, is it Chinese or Western medicine that is the alternative?

(I honestly don't know)

samson09

Ronanc1 wrote: »

As dawkins said "if alternative medicine worked it wouldnt be called "alternative" itd be accepted by all medical and healthcare institutions everywhere as well as implemented but it isnt, medicine either works or it doesnt and the ones that dont are the "alternates"

I prefer to use the term "natural medicine" myself but since the majority of the public refer to it as "alternative" I decided to use that term at the start of this thread. Anyway, even the parts of "alternative " medicine that have been proven to work (e.g. acupuncture for lower back pain) are still referred to as alternative.

King Mob

samson09 wrote: »

Anyway, even the parts of "alternative " medicine that have been proven to work (e.g. acupuncture for lower back pain) are still referred to as alternative.

No it hasn't.

Acupuncture has been show to be as effective as completely fake acupuncture.
Which is as effective as a placebo.

Oh, and that the mechanism by which it claims to work is baseless medieval rubbish.

espinolman

Ronanc1 wrote: »

As dawkins said "if alternative medicine worked it wouldnt be called "alternative" itd be accepted by all medical and healthcare institutions everywhere as well as implemented but it isnt, medicine either works or it doesnt and the ones that dont are the "alternates"

To say alternative medicine is very general , that could refer to any of a number of different fields , what exactly are you trying to say does not work .

Ronanc1

To say alternative medicine is very general , that could refer to any of a number of different fields , what exactly are you trying to say does not work

Homeopathy, crystal therapy, quantum healing, reiki, herbalism etc basically anything that refers to healing with some new found "energy" chakras or water molecules "remembering"

espinolman

Ronanc1 wrote: »

Homeopathy, crystal therapy, quantum healing, reiki, herbalism etc basically anything that refers to healing with some new found "energy" chakras or water molecules "remembering"

You have herbalism in that list , are you saying herbalism does not work ? :eek:

watty

some herbs do and some don't

I take synthetic essence of Willow Bark. The real thing is awkward.

"Herbalism" with a big H is full of snake oil practitioners.

Herbalists tend to use extracts from parts of plants, such as the roots or leaves but not isolate particular phytochemicals. Pharmaceutical medicine prefers single ingredients on the grounds that dosage can be more easily quantified. Herbalists reject the notion of a single active ingredient. They argue that the different phytochemicals present in many herbs will interact to enhance the therapeutic effects of the herb and dilute toxicity. Furthermore, they argue that a single ingredient may contribute to multiple effects. Herbalists deny that herbal synergism can be duplicated with synthetic chemicals. They argue that phytochemical interactions and trace components may alter the drug response in ways that cannot currently be replicated with a combination of a few putative active ingredients. Pharmaceutical researchers recognize the concept of drug synergism but note that clinical trials may be used to investigate the efficacy of a particular herbal preparation, provided the formulation of that herb is consistent.

The problem arises when Superstition, Tradition, Placebo, Faith is more important than verified double blind trial results.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026473_the_FDA_H1N1_natural_products.html

I think its fair to say natural medicine is being more than suppressed.

King Mob

Jake1 wrote: »

http://www.naturalnews.com/026473_the_FDA_H1N1_natural_products.html

I think its fair to say natural medicine is being more than suppressed.

Hang on.
Stopping people making baseless medical claims is suppression?

In that case I have a magic stick that cure everything including swine flu and cancer.
Only $1000 a wave.

2Scoops

Jake1 wrote: »

http://www.naturalnews.com/026473_the_FDA_H1N1_natural_products.html

I think its fair to say natural medicine is being more than suppressed.

But why would a natural remedy deliberately reference the H1N1 swine flu when it has no proven efficacy. It could just say 'flu' and not swine flu, if it's been shown to help with general flu symptoms and the FDA won't mind. So, why deliberately market it as a swine flu treatment?

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

Hang on.
Stopping people making baseless medical claims is suppression?

In that case I have a magic stick that cure everything including swine flu and cancer.
Only $1000 a wave.

There are plenty of herbs that will aid your immune system, how is that a baseless medical claim? These herbs have been used to aid immune systems, for thousands of years, surely stating they might supress swine flu is not a baseless medical fact.Or can you please post a link where its been medically proven that herbs cant aid or help illnesses, Id be glad to give it a read. I know these herbs dont cure cancer and other disease or severe illnesses, but they can help.

Your joke about magic stick makes no sense...
But there again, you only come in these forums to argue and disagree with people:)
certain herbs could aid that

peace man.

King Mob

Jake1 wrote: »

There are plenty of herbs that will aid your immune system, how is that a baseless medical claim? These herbs have been used to aid immune systems, for thousands of years, surely stating they might supress swine flu is not a baseless medical fact.Or can you please post a link where its been medically proven that herbs cant aid or help illnesses, Id be glad to give it a read. I know these herbs dont cure cancer and other disease or severe illnesses, but they can help.

Your joke about magic stick makes no sense...
But there again, you only come in these forums to argue and disagree with people:)
certain herbs could aid that

peace man.

And how do you know which herbs can help and with herbs are complete snake oil?

How do you know the claim of suppression is just to get out of the normal scientific process that might show a product doesn't work.

Why should these products be allowed to claim that they can help or cure swine flu when there is no prof that they can?

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

And how do you know which herbs can help and with herbs are complete snake oil?

How do you know the claim of suppression is just to get out of the normal scientific process that might show a product doesn't work.

Why should these products be allowed to claim that they can help or cure swine flu when there is no prof that they can?

ALso, Tamiflu aint so healthy either, if you fancy, have a gander at this.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026473_the_FDA_H1N1_natural_products.html

So my point is why are Goverments treating this Tamiflu as a holy grail of Swine Flu cure, when it isnt?
Herbs are no more dangerous than this drug. IMHO, of course.

King Mob

Jake1 wrote: »

ALso, Tamiflu aint so healthy either, if you fancy, have a gander at this.

http://www.naturalnews.com/026473_the_FDA_H1N1_natural_products.html

So my point is why are Goverments treating this Tamiflu as a holy grail of Swine Flu cure, when it isnt?
Herbs are no more dangerous than this drug. IMHO, of course.

That's the same article you linked earlier. But given the terrible quality of the other articles on that site I doubt they'll have anything convincing about tamiflu.

Your original point was that the FDA was surpressing natural cures for swine flu.
This isn't the case.
It's clear that the FDA is just doing it's job.
You can't claim your product does something without scientific evidence.
It's illegal to do so.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

That's the same article you linked earlier. But given the terrible quality of the other articles on that site I doubt they'll have anything convincing about tamiflu.

Your original point was that the FDA was surpressing natural cures for swine flu.
This isn't the case.
It's clear that the FDA is just doing it's job.
You can't claim your product does something without scientific evidence.
It's illegal to do so.

Sorry about that, dunno where my head is at tonite, heres the link I meant to post.

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/11/20/14541.aspx

It's clear that the FDA is just doing it's job.
You can't claim your product does something without scientific evidence.
It's illegal to do so.[/quote]


WHy dont the FDA force the Pharma group who make Tamiflu, put a warning on the label stating it may cause Hallucinations and convulsions in young children? It might not be legal either but it would be moral and ethical dont you think?

King Mob

Jake1 wrote: »

WHy dont the FDA force the Pharma group who make Tamiflu, put a warning on the label stating it may cause Hallucinations and convulsions in young children? It might not be legal either but it would be moral and ethical dont you think?

You seem to be missing the point.

He adds that Tamiflu has been used widely over the last six years, and has set a consistent safety record in both the United States and Japan.

Tamiflu has FDA approval but the side effect are very well studied.

And in November 2006, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) amended the warning label to include the possible side effects of delirium, hallucinations, or other related behaviour.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oseltamivir

So how is the FDA doing it's job the same as suppression?

samson09

2Scoops wrote: »

But why would a natural remedy deliberately reference the H1N1 swine flu when it has no proven efficacy. It could just say 'flu' and not swine flu, if it's been shown to help with general flu symptoms and the FDA won't mind. So, why deliberately market it as a swine flu treatment?

Even if a natural remedy just said "flu" and not "swine flu" the FDA would still stamp down on it. The FDA has previously insisted that all distibutors of vitamins, herbs, etc cant claim that they are of benefit to one's health or even that they have been used historically to treat certain illnesses.

According to naturalnews.com:An "FDA "guidance" document, published on the FDA's website, reveals plans to reclassify virtually all vitamins, supplements, herbs and even vegetable juices as FDA-regulated drugs. Massage oils and massage rocks will be classified as "medical devices" and require FDA approval. The document is called Docket No. 2006D-0480. Draft Guidance for Industry on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Products and Their Regulation by the Food and Drug Administration."

http://www.naturalnews.com/021789.html

In my opinion, the FDA is nothing more than a corrupt criminal organisation that is intent on keeping the general public in the dark wrt natural medicine.

"Can I have two vegetable juices to go please?"

"Sorry, I'll have to see your prescription first."

Further examples of how the corrupted FDA operate can be found here...

FDA Declares Form of Vitamin B6 a Drug, Effectively Banning Pyridoxamine from Dietary Supplements http://www.naturalnews.com/025606_pyridoxamine_the_FDA_vitamin_B6.html



FDA Raids, Arrests Nutritionist Stephen Heuer for Selling Herbs that Reverse Depression
http://www.naturalnews.com/News_000673_FDA_raids_Stephen_Heuer_free_speech.html


In short, "It remains the position of the FDA that there is no such thing as an herb, vitamin or superfood that has any ability to prevent, treat or cure any disease or health condition whatsoever. (In other words, the FDA ridiculously believes foods and herbs are chemically inert.)"

Suppression isnt a strong enough word to use anymore.

2Scoops

samson09 wrote: »

Even if a natural remedy just said "flu" and not "swine flu" the FDA would still stamp down on it.

I would like to see a single example of a natural remedy with proven efficacy for flu treatment that has been stamped down on by the FDA.

2Scoops

2Scoops wrote: »

I would like to see a single example of a natural remedy with proven efficacy for flu treatment that has been stamped down on by the FDA.

Im off to bed, but heres a link to who the FDA is going after,

http://amrita.net/flulandingpage.aspx

These Herbal extracts do as much as bloody Tamiflu, which incidentally dosent Cure swine Flu either, it just greatly reduces it.
This is why I think Natural Medicine is being repressed.

Good evening gentlemen.

King Mob

Jake1 wrote: »

Im off to bed, but heres a link to who the FDA is going after,

http://amrita.net/flulandingpage.aspx

These Herbal extracts do as much as bloody Tamiflu, which incidentally dosent Cure swine Flu either, it just greatly reduces it.
This is why I think Natural Medicine is being repressed.

Good evening gentlemen.

Not exactly an abundance of science there.

How do you know it's as effective as tamiflu?

I don't think anyone has claimed tamiflu cures anything either.
Just that it is effective in treating the flu.
And there's actual science backing that up.

King Mob

King Mob wrote: »

Not exactly an abundance of science there.

How do you know it's as effective as tamiflu?

I don't think anyone has claimed tamiflu cures anything either.
Just that it is effective in treating the flu.
And there's actual science backing that up.

And the science comes from... the makers who want to sell it, and also the Governments who have stockpiled it.
The science of herbs comes from thousands of years of use.

Lets face it, KM, Big Companys and Gov's dont lie , now do they. They never have , and they never will.

ya know, I was sent PMs regarding you tonight, Im beginging to see what they meant.

King Mob

Jake1 wrote: »

And the science comes from... the makers who want to sell it, and also the Governments who have stockpiled it.
The science of herbs comes from thousands of years of use.

Lets face it, KM, Big Companys and Gov's dont lie , now do they. They never have , and they never will.

ya know, I was sent PMs regarding you tonight, Im beginging to see what they meant.

Nice to see I'm appreciated.

Can you point out where the science has been tampered with?
Or are you assuming that is was due to your preconceived notions?

And small companies don't lie? Even when they sell their products without any evidence of efficacy.

And how do you know that the products you linked are as effective as tamiflu?