# Most herbal supplements aren't



## spokanedaniel

The FDA recently tested a bunch of herbal supplements, and found that roughly 4 out of 5 did not contain the ingredients listed on the label. A significant number (I forget now but I think it was something large, like 20%) contained fillers not listed on the label. In many cases those unlisted fillers consisted of wheat and legumes. A small but significant number of people are allergic to these things, so failing to list them or warn of their presence on the label is disturbing. Since most of the claimed active ingredients don't actually have the benefits attributed to them, their absence in the products is of less importance than the inclusion of common allergens without listing on the label.

The FDA has told several major retailers, including but possibly not limited to Walmart, Walgreens, and Target, to stop selling these products, and they have replied in various ways, but I don't think any of them unequivocally agreed to stop selling the products in question.

In an earlier study, Consumer Reports, made similar findings, but the CU study also found actual prescription medicines in some supplements, but not listed on the labels.

It's encouraging that the FDA is finally taking action against products that are clearly misleading and often mislabeled, and which can sometimes be harmful or can interact with prescription medicines, but which seldom have the claimed beneficial effects. Sadly, all too many people buy into the naturalistic fallacy, which is the belief that if something is natural it is harmless. Cobra venom, as just one example out of millions, is 100% natural and will kill you. [Note: When used on food and supplement labels, the word "natural" has no legal definition, so it can legally be put on anything. Whatever "natural" means to you, it's not what it means on a food or supplement label. On those labels, what "natural" actually means is "We want you to have a warm fuzzy feeling about our product." Nothing more.]


----------



## Couchie

Actually "natural" is a very important indicator on a package. It means the product is complete bull****. 

At best these naturopathic remedies will be an expensive waste of money, at worst, they will kill you (ie. Steve Jobs). You're trading in many decades of proven biochemistry understood at the molecular level with pseudoscientific folk remedies based on traditional lore and no standards for proving effectiveness or evaluating risks. Be so arrogant and ignorant at your own risk, I say.


----------



## starthrower

I spend my money on food, not bogus supplement products.


----------



## tdc

I love using various herbs as food and for naturopathic uses. There is an easy way around the dilemma in the OP. Just buy the herbs in their natural state and avoid supplements all together.


----------



## GhenghisKhan

Finally some good sense on the internet. I thought this day would never come.


----------



## mtmailey

There are certain herbs for certain health problems which means that certain herbs can not help certain problems.Also they take time to work they do not work quickly.I do not trust the FDA because they claim certain medicines are safe BUT causes death & nasty side effects.TO BE HONEST ONE CAN DIE BY OVERDOSING ON FDA APPROVED MEDICINES.PAINKILLERS one may use to commit suicide.


----------



## mtmailey

GhenghisKhan said:


> Finally some good sense on the internet. I thought this day would never come.


There are plenty fools & wise people online you know.


----------



## ahammel

mtmailey said:


> There are certain herbs for certain health problems which means that certain herbs can not help certain problems.Also they take time to work they do not work quickly.I do not trust the FDA because they claim certain medicines are safe BUT causes death & nasty side effects.TO BE HONEST ONE CAN DIE BY OVERDOSING ON FDA APPROVED MEDICINES.PAINKILLERS one may use to commit suicide.


Certain herbal supplements are quite capable of killing you stone dead.


----------



## brotagonist

I take music supplements daily.


----------



## Bruce

Supplements can also help. But I'd advise taking them only after a lot of research and work with someone familiar with the products. To solve my own health problems, I found the medical establishment completely useless. Only when I started visiting a naturopath and taking the recommended supplements did my symptoms start to disappear. The trick is not to put all your eggs in one basket, but to be aware of all the options, and rationally decide which is going to have the desired affect.


----------



## Couchie

mtmailey said:


> There are certain herbs for certain health problems which means that certain herbs can not help certain problems.Also they take time to work they do not work quickly.I do not trust the FDA because they claim certain medicines are safe BUT causes death & nasty side effects.TO BE HONEST ONE CAN DIE BY OVERDOSING ON FDA APPROVED MEDICINES.PAINKILLERS one may use to commit suicide.


Any FDA approved drug has been through extremely extensive clinical trials to have both statistically significant effectiveness as well as to determine toxicity and delineate side effects. These are made known to you by the packaging, the prescribing doctor, and the dispensing is tightly controlled by a pharmacist. If you choose to ignore the dosage and advice they give you and overdose or use it in a dangerous conjunction with other drugs then that is your problem. You will notice that you are also free to drive your car off a cliff, but that is not an argument against cars.

Herbal and other supplements are entirely uncontrolled. One may buy them in a store or online and there is no possible way to know what exactly you are consuming, how accurate the labelling is, what kind of dosage might be harmful, what side effects there may be, or how effective the product is relative to a placebo. You are playing Russian Roulette.


----------



## starthrower

Supplements are about generously supplementing the bank accounts of the peddlers. A while back there was a guy with a bad topee peddling colon cleanse on an infomercial here in the states. I did some research only to find out that compared to ten other products on the market, the one being pushed in the infomercial was of the lowest quality containing the cheapest ingredients. But that's how direct marketers get rich.


----------



## spokanedaniel

tdc said:


> I love using various herbs as food and for naturopathic uses. There is an easy way around the dilemma in the OP. Just buy the herbs in their natural state and avoid supplements all together.


Herbs in their natural state differ widely in the quantity of their active components, and are contaminated with a thousand other natural components which may or may not be beneficial. Thus, when you take herbs in their natural state you have no idea how much of the active ingredients you are getting.



Bruce said:


> Supplements can also help. But I'd advise taking them only after a lot of research and work with someone familiar with the products. To solve my own health problems, I found the medical establishment completely useless. Only when I started visiting a naturopath and taking the recommended supplements did my symptoms start to disappear. The trick is not to put all your eggs in one basket, but to be aware of all the options, and rationally decide which is going to have the desired affect.


The reason pharmaceuticals are tested in double-blind, placebo-controlled studies is that personal, subjective experience is entirely unreliable. You may feel better just because the practitioner has a great bedside manner, or because your body finally fought off the illness on its own, or because something else you ate or did or took was responsible.

And since supplements are NOT tested for safety, efficacy, or even dosage, you have no idea how much you're getting. Consumer Reports tested a bunch of supplements and found that the dosage of the active ingredient varied widely, not only between bottles of the same product from the same seller, but even between tablets within the same bottle.

Supplements are a scam, pure and simple. The recent FDA finding, as well as CU's earlier findings, demonstrate this clearly. And the extreme variability within the same product means that while one bottle may contain what the label says, the next bottle of the exact same product may contain prescription drugs not listed on the label, or foods you are allergic to, also not on the label.

Prescription drugs are tested and regulated. Every tablet of 125 mcg levothyroxin will have exactly 125 mcg of levothyroxin and no other active drug or any allergenic filler. Supplements are a complete roll of the dice: You have no way of knowing what you're actually getting.

And if you feel you must take supplements, please tell your doctor, because many supplements have interactions with the medicines you may be taking. Many supplements do have potent active ingredients, and the people who prescribe such things (typically naturopaths) have no medical training other than what they receive from other naturopaths. I've seen teen-aged clerks at "heath-food" stores recommend supplements to customers, based on having read promotional pamphlets. I shudder at the stupidity of people who would take medical advice from children (under the misapprehension that if the label says "natural" it must be safe) and at the callous disregard for public safety on the part of retailers who allow it. Even a "trained" naturopath has no training in the pharmacology of herbs.

Even those who persist in believing in the beneficial effect of supplements, should be outraged by the FDA and CU findings that supplements are mislabeled more often than not, often do not contain the claimed ingredients, and often contain active ingredients and common allergens not listed on the label.


----------



## Morimur

If you're planning on taking any kind of naturally derived medicines and/or supplements, do your research and make an appointment with an Integrative Medicine Doctor. I'd been 'customer' of conventional medicine for years and only recently came to the painful realization that these doctors isolate a symptom and don't consider the whole; in other words, their approach is anything but holistic, and therefore narrow minded and potentially hazardous to the patient. That's not to completely dismiss the effectiveness of conventional medicine in certain circumstances, but why not consult with someone who specializes in more than one approach?

After years of suffering from chronic fatigue symptoms and being told by _many_ doctors that I was as healthy as a horse, I decided to take my business elsewhere. My current doctor ran some tests and promptly informed me that my testosterone levels were dangerously low. I've been put on natural medications that are finally restoring my testosterone levels to normal. Of course, I still have a long way to go, but I feel MUCH better now-more energized, and that has made me a better husband, among other things. I no longer feel like I'd rather die because I have no strength to do anything other than work.

Conclusion: Conventional medicine isn't irrelevant, but it is _narrow-minded_ and _backwards_. A holistic approach is necessary in order to effectively assess and/or treat the health of a patient-a band-aid is not nearly enough. The good news is that America is finally beginning to embrace this approach and a number of reputable medical schools are offering courses in alternative medical practices-AMEN.


----------



## Guest

I don't want to wade too deeply in here. Those who believe in supplements aren't going to be convinced one way or the other by this study, or by anything I say.

But I will say something to the issue of the safety of FDA-approved drugs. Just because a drug is approved by the FDA doesn't mean it is completely harmless. Almost every drug out there is a give and take. There are plusses and minuses - generally, though, the benefits have been found to outweigh the risks WHEN DISPENSED PROPERLY and TAKEN AS PRESCRIBED.

Chemotherapy is horrible - you are basically pumping poison into your body. Any healthy individual would be an idiot to take chemotherapy. But the FDA has approved many chemotherapeutics for the treatment of cancer because they find that they kill cancerous cells at a significantly higher rate than normal cells, and for a person with cancer, it is worth the risk to kill the cancer, and whatever side effects they experience are preferable to death.

Healthy people shouldn't inject insulin into their systems - it can drive them into a hypoglycemic coma if too much is injected. For a diabetic, though, it is the difference between controlling blood sugar and living a long, productive life, or dying young.

Painkillers can be addictive, they can even be deadly when taken improperly. But there are absolutely situations when they are essential for managing pain.

It all comes down to what is known as the therapeutic dose - the optimal dose that best balances the benefits and risks. Bad drugs are the ones where the therapeutic dose is too close to the harmful dose. Good drugs have a broad range between therapeutic effect and harm. The less essential a drug is, the less harm we are willing to tolerate. You aren't going to get a lot of over the counter drugs that are really harmful, whereas cancer drugs are allowed in spite of the fact of their nasty side effects.

I would also caution against purchasing pharmaceuticals internationally - they are finding a lot of drugs are coming from places like Eastern Europe, and not only do they frequently not contain the full dose they claim, but frequently they don't contain the active drug at all.


----------



## Couchie

Morimur said:


> Conclusion: Conventional medicine isn't irrelevant, but it is _narrow-minded_ and _backwards_. A holistic approach is necessary in order to effectively assess and/or treat the health of a patient-a band-aid is not nearly enough. The good news is that America is finally beginning to embrace this approach and a number of reputable medical schools are offering courses in alternative medical practices-AMEN.


Cool story bro. Let me know when "alternative medicine" sets even some basic standards comparable to conventional ("evidence-based") medicine. As long as there are holistic practitioners who claim they can cure AIDS and cancer with herbs or homeopathy, alternative medicine is a dangerous menace to society that is killing people.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> If you're planning on taking any kind of naturally derived medicines and/or supplements, do your research and make an appointment with an Integrative Medicine Doctor. I'd been 'customer' of conventional medicine for years and only recently came to the painful realization that these doctors isolate a symptom and don't consider the whole; in other words, their approach is anything but holistic, and therefore narrow minded and potentially hazardous to the patient. That's not to completely dismiss the effectiveness of conventional medicine in certain circumstances, but why not consult with someone who specializes in more than one approach?
> 
> After years of suffering from chronic fatigue symptoms and being told by _many_ doctors that I was as healthy as a horse, I decided to take my business elsewhere. My current doctor ran some tests and promptly informed me that my testosterone levels were dangerously low. I've been put on natural medications that are finally restoring my testosterone levels to normal. Of course, I still have a long way to go, but I feel MUCH better now-more energized, and that has made me a better husband, among other things. I no longer feel like I'd rather die because I have no strength to do anything other than work.
> 
> Conclusion: Conventional medicine isn't irrelevant, but it is _narrow-minded_ and _backwards_. A holistic approach is necessary in order to effectively assess and/or treat the health of a patient-a band-aid is not nearly enough. The good news is that America is finally beginning to embrace this approach and a number of reputable medical schools are offering courses in alternative medical practices-AMEN.


I would be suspect of "natural medications" that purport to boost testosterone. There are other natural ways of naturally boosting testosterone - reducing stress, exercising, maintaining a healthy weight, getting sufficient rest.

Now, I will say that not all natural medications are bunk. Many pharmaceuticals came originally from natural sources. Aspirin was discovered after isolating the active chemical from bark of a willow trees and other plants high in salicylates that people had been using for a long time to brew a tea to soothe aches, fever, and inflammation.

The problem with "natural" and "herbal" medicines is that you often get a mixture of chemicals in nature - not all being beneficial. In my own research, I am working with a bark extract that has been shown to boost immune responses - an adjuvant. The problem is that if you just use the straight extract, there are numerous similar chemicals, some are significantly more toxic than others, and you frequently get varying relative amounts of each. So people have worked to extract the individual compounds, determine which are the most effective, as well as the least toxic, and then synthesize those in the lab. Natural? No. But what does natural mean? It is a compound found naturally in nature - but it is synthesized in a lab. Still, it is chemically identical, and as far as your body is concerned, that is all that matters. For the receptors in your body, all that matters is whether it is the correct combination of atoms in the right configuration - whether it came directly from the bark of a tree or a beaker makes no difference.

The other benefit of lab-made drugs is that they can often take dangerous drugs, identify the components that are harmful, and remove those, leaving them still effective, but much less toxic.

As to your original doctors not identifying low testosterone levels, well, that just seems like poor work on their part. I regularly get blood work done, and I know all of my levels for all the important things in my body, including testosterone levels. And that is from a conventional doctor, as well as my endocrinologist. I didn't need to visit a holistic doctor.


----------



## Kieran

Friend of mine went to a quack for a strange itch on her scalp, felt like a huge rash had appeared, but nothing was noticeable. Her scalp was burning. The quack took about five minutes over the whole thing, recommended she try three different drugs, if they don't work, come back next week. Barely took her second name, let alone a full case study, family history, what have you. Sure, how could the quack waste time talking when there was a waiting room full of souls each looking to pay €75 for their five minute consultation, which concludes with the quack pushing drugs for the Man?


----------



## Morimur

What can I say, stick with what works for you, then.


----------



## Ingélou

I would always use conventional medicine for a serious illness; but food supplements and herbs produced by reputable companies can be useful. For example, Taggart had cold hands and feet and bad cramps after his norovirus; luckily I had some magnesium tablets in the house which rectified matters - the magnesium had leeched from his body during his illness.

And peppermint tea is very useful for indigestion.

Not all herbal remedies are bad, if you're sensible, and don't invest herbalism with a mystical significance. I certainly take the point that they are 'drugs' too; in the past, digitalis was used to help heart disease - as it is now; and in the past quite a few people died of overdoses as well as the ones who were helped.


----------



## Morimur

DrMike said:


> I would be suspect of "natural medications" that purport to boost testosterone. There are other natural ways of naturally boosting testosterone - reducing stress, exercising, maintaining a healthy weight, getting sufficient rest.
> 
> Now, I will say that not all natural medications are bunk. Many pharmaceuticals came originally from natural sources. Aspirin was discovered after isolating the active chemical from bark of a willow trees and other plants high in salicylates that people had been using for a long time to brew a tea to soothe aches, fever, and inflammation.
> 
> The problem with "natural" and "herbal" medicines is that you often get a mixture of chemicals in nature - not all being beneficial. In my own research, I am working with a bark extract that has been shown to boost immune responses - an adjuvant. The problem is that if you just use the straight extract, there are numerous similar chemicals, some are significantly more toxic than others, and you frequently get varying relative amounts of each. So people have worked to extract the individual compounds, determine which are the most effective, as well as the least toxic, and then synthesize those in the lab. Natural? No. But what does natural mean? It is a compound found naturally in nature - but it is synthesized in a lab. Still, it is chemically identical, and as far as your body is concerned, that is all that matters. For the receptors in your body, all that matters is whether it is the correct combination of atoms in the right configuration - whether it came directly from the bark of a tree or a beaker makes no difference.
> 
> The other benefit of lab-made drugs is that they can often take dangerous drugs, identify the components that are harmful, and remove those, leaving them still effective, but much less toxic.
> 
> As to your original doctors not identifying low testosterone levels, well, that just seems like poor work on their part. I regularly get blood work done, and I know all of my levels for all the important things in my body, including testosterone levels. And that is from a conventional doctor, as well as my endocrinologist. I didn't need to visit a holistic doctor.


I guess you got a good one. I seem to have been 'unlucky' in that regard. Funny how that works. Ho-hum. By the way, notice that I NEVER said conventional medicine is useless. What I said was that it would be beneficial if doctors considered additional approaches --it's not a question of one vs the order. The doctor I see integrates both approaches. Are there quacks out there who swear by the healing power of herbs? Sure. There are also many, and I mean MANY incompetent doctors who may or may not have knowledge of alternative forms of medicine. Should we make blanket statements based on that? It's your life, do whatever works or what you 'think' works for you.


----------



## Kieran

Ingélou said:


> I would always use conventional medicine for a serious illness; but food supplements and herbs produced by reputable companies can be useful. For example, Taggart had cold hands and feet and bad cramps after his norovirus; luckily I had some magnesium tablets in the house which rectified matters - the magnesium had leeched from his body during his illness.
> 
> And peppermint tea is very useful for indigestion.
> 
> Not all herbal remedies are bad, if you're sensible, and don't invest herbalism with a mystical significance. I certainly take the point that they are 'drugs' too; in the past, digitalis was used to help heart disease - as it is now; and in the past quite a few people died of overdoses as well as the ones who were helped.


Exactly. And thankfully a lot of good doctors are becoming aware of the effects of complimentary medicine and asking their patients to go there first, before prescribing drugs...


----------



## tdc

Couchie said:


> Cool story bro. Let me know when "alternative medicine" sets even some basic standards comparable to conventional ("evidence-based") medicine. As long as there are holistic practitioners who claim they can cure AIDS and cancer with herbs or homeopathy, alternative medicine is a dangerous menace to society that is killing people.


Yet all you've offered as evidence is one story - the Steve Jobs thing. "Conventional" medicine kills hundreds of thousands of people every year - due to medical mistakes. That is fact. This has nothing to do with patients reading labels wrong, these are preventable deaths that occur due to bad hospital care. _Medical Errors are the third leading cause of death in America_.

The fact is "Conventional" medicine too often comes down to doctors being paid drug pushers for the pharmaceutical industry. Too often prescribing dangerous drugs that harm and kill people when there are natural solutions available that deal with the root of the problem and not just the symptoms. The pharmaceutical industry is a menace to society.

Outside of certain conditions like broken bones I'll generally take my chances with the naturopathic approach - when that doesn't work I might try conventional medicine.


----------



## mtmailey

ahammel said:


> Certain herbal supplements are quite capable of killing you stone dead.


That is true that is why one should do research like how to prepare herbs for uses.Certain herbs must be aged for months or years before they are used.


----------



## tdc

spokanedaniel said:


> Herbs in their natural state differ widely in the quantity of their active components, and are contaminated with a thousand other natural components which may or may not be beneficial. Thus, when you take herbs in their natural state you have no idea how much of the active ingredients you are getting.


Well I've been using herbs for over a decade and never had a problem, nor has anyone I know ever had a problem using them. I did become extremely ill from "conventional" medicine though when I was repeatedly prescribed anti-biotics. I later came to realize they were completely unnecessary, and was able to regain my health using a combination of probiotics, and a healthier diet (including herbs) and exercise.


----------



## Guest

tdc said:


> Well I've been using herbs for over a decade and never had a problem, nor has anyone I know ever had a problem using them. I did become extremely ill from "conventional" medicine though when I was repeatedly prescribed anti-biotics. I later came to realize they were completely unnecessary, and was able to regain my health using a combination of probiotics, and a healthier diet (including herbs) and exercise.


That is a good theory. Except there is incontrovertible evidence that the advent of antibiotics, like penicillin, did a whole lot more to prevent death than probiotics, healthy diet, and exercise when it comes to bacterial infection.


----------



## Guest

mtmailey said:


> That is true that is why one should do research like how to prepare herbs for uses.Certain herbs must be aged for months or years before they are used.


What exactly does aging an herb do, other than dry it out? I'm not sure how aging an herb increases its efficacy.


----------



## tdc

DrMike said:


> That is a good theory. Except there is incontrovertible evidence that the advent of antibiotics, like penicillin, did a whole lot more to prevent death than probiotics, healthy diet, and exercise when it comes to bacterial infection.


There are cases when anti-biotics prevent death - absolutely. I'm not suggesting that anti-biotics are never necessary, but in my case I learned they were 100% unnecessary. Yet my doctor seemed to want to continue prescribing them. I later found out long term use of anti-biotics is very damaging to the immune system and digestive tract - it took me years to undo the damage that was caused to me directly by my medical doctor.

Proper use of diet, including herbs, and exercise can effectively prevent most (not all) illness. But there is not a lot of profit margin in that approach, so it is not something that one will hear about from their doctor. The doctor's job is largely to continue to prescribe "medicine" that hides symptoms while keeping patients ill so big corporations can continue to rake in profits.

I've already stated there are exceptions and times when medical doctors are needed (just hope you don't end up accidentally killed in the process). But those exceptions do not negate my point.


----------



## Couchie

tdc said:


> Yet all you've offered as evidence is one story - the Steve Jobs thing. "Conventional" medicine kills hundreds of thousands of people every year - due to medical mistakes. That is fact. This has nothing to do with patients reading labels wrong, these are preventable deaths that occur due to bad hospital care. _Medical Errors are the third leading cause of death in America_.
> 
> The fact is "Conventional" medicine too often comes down to doctors being paid drug pushers for the pharmaceutical industry. Too often prescribing dangerous drugs that harm and kill people when there are natural solutions available that deal with the root of the problem and not just the symptoms. The pharmaceutical industry is a menace to society.
> 
> Outside of certain conditions like broken bones I'll generally take my chances with the naturopathic approach - when that doesn't work I might try conventional medicine.


Are you saying that the consultation and remedies administered by naturopaths is free of charge? Because if not, you do not have a point to make here. At least you can be sure the product contains an active ingredient, unlike homeopaths who charge an outrageous sum for little vials of ordinary tap water.


----------



## violadude

I can only provide a simple anecdote in support of the OPs claims, not that anecdotes prove much of anything most of the time. I "suffer" (it's really not that bad because most of the time it doesn't bother me) from low electrolyte counts, mostly with regards to potassium. One day I was feeling low on potassium and it was causing fatigue and really painful cramps (not to mention just an overall "sick" feeling, lack of appetite and all that). I swear I took about 30 or so potassium supplements to try and fix it and they didn't really do much. Then I ate a banana and a quarter bag of spinach and felt much better within a few hours.

So just from my experience, I would reccommend getting nutrients and vitamins from food rather than pills whenever possible. I know it can be hard if you don't like anything with a particular important substance in it. But uuh, power eat your way through it anyway or you'll die of complications from lack of nutrients and that's no fun.


----------



## Posie

Though the natural health movement has mostly been a positive thing, the "big pharma" conspiracy theorists have done everyone much more harm than good. There are definitely some questionable ethics involved in the pharmaceutical industry, and these "activists" detract from the real problems. They apparently haven't given much thought to the difficulty of medical research.

We all wish that life were simple enough that we could cure any disease from herbs in the garden, but if that were true, there would be no drugs at all and very few hospitals.


----------



## tdc

marinasabina said:


> Though the natural health movement has mostly been a positive thing, the "big pharma" conspiracy theorists have done everyone much more harm than good. There are definitely some questionable ethics involved in the pharmaceutical industry, and these "activists" detract from the real problems. They apparently haven't given much thought to the difficulty of medical research.
> 
> We all wish that life were simple enough that we could cure any disease from herbs in the garden, but if that were true, there would be no drugs at all and very few hospitals.


Well I'm not sure if this is pertaining to any of the things I've brought up, but if so I'll just point out I was discussing facts, not theories. Can you please clarify what you consider to be the "real" problems we are dealing with?

I honestly believe if people were better educated on health and medicine there _would_ be very few drugs needed and less people dependent on hospitals. Never once have I claimed these things are completely unnecessary or that we can cure any disease from herbs in the garden, and don't recall ever reading anyone making such claims.


----------



## tdc

Couchie said:


> Are you saying that the consultation and remedies administered by naturopaths is free of charge? Because if not, you do not have a point to make here. At least you can be sure the product contains an active ingredient, unlike homeopaths who charge an outrageous sum for little vials of ordinary tap water.


No, that doesn't have much to do with my point. You suggested that alternative medicine is a threat to society killing people - I pointed out that mainstream medicine is already doing a pretty effective job of that. You mentioned Steve Jobs and I pointed out hundreds of thousands of victims in America alone every year. As far as naturopaths I think they encompass a wide range of practices - admittedly not all effective. I have never gotten good results from a naturopath - but I've never been harmed by one either. I'm advocating self-education. Again I'm not saying professional doctors (whether naturopathic or conventional) are never useful or required.


----------



## spokanedaniel

Morimur said:


> If you're planning on taking any kind of naturally derived medicines and/or supplements, do your research and make an appointment with an Integrative Medicine Doctor. I'd been 'customer' of conventional medicine for years and only recently came to the painful realization that these doctors isolate a symptom and don't consider the whole; in other words, their approach is anything but holistic, and therefore narrow minded and potentially hazardous to the patient. That's not to completely dismiss the effectiveness of conventional medicine in certain circumstances, but why not consult with someone who specializes in more than one approach?


I really don't know where this is coming from, though I keep hearing it from the opponents of science-based medicine. My doctor, and the doctor I had before him, and the one before that, ALL took a wholistic approach. They all advocate exercise, a balanced diet of real (as opposed to junk) foods, avoiding smoking, avoiding excessive amounts of alcohol and sugar, etc., etc., etc. What he and they do NOT do is prescribe nostrums that have no scientific backing.



Morimur said:


> What can I say, stick with what works for you, then.


There is a serious fallacy here, and it is that our brains play tricks on us. What you think works for you is as unreliable as one of those Escher drawings where the stairway seems to always go up even though it meets itself on the other side. Science is the only way we can really know what works. Thus medicine based on science is the only reliable medicine. It does not always work because the human body is mortal. But it works far more often than taking remedies at random based on the fantasy that people knew more in the past than they know now.



Ingélou said:


> I would always use conventional medicine for a serious illness; but food supplements and herbs produced by reputable companies can be useful. [...]


What the FDA and CU studies have shown is that there are no reputable sellers of herbs and supplements. Whether you get what the label says is a roll of the dice.



Ingélou said:


> Not all herbal remedies are bad...


True. Not all herbal remedies are bad. But ALL herbal remedies are unreliable because you never know what you're getting due to lack of testing and oversight. Even if you take the natural plant, the dosages of the active ingredients is unknown, as they vary considerably from one specimen to the next.

People love to cite aspirin and digitalis as coming from plants. That's true, they did. In fact, MOST pharmaceuticals derive from plants. The difference is that pharmaceutical companies test them to find out and quantify their benefits and side effects, then they extract or synthesize them under strict quality control, then dispense them in tightly-controlled dosage, and legitimate doctors study them to be able to evaluate the benefit vs the risk for a given patient and a given medicine. It is not an exact science. But it's a lot better than the mumbo-jumbo of a naturopath without education in pharmacology dispensing nostrums produced without any quality control in bottles that are mis-labeled more than half the time.

When traditional medicine was all there was, people were very lucky to survive into their 40's. Now people are very unlucky if they don't make it into their 70's or even their 80's. The biggest problem with evidence-based medicine is that too few people pay attention to its recommendations for maintaining good health. If people followed the advice of their doctors there would be far less obesity, diabetes, lung cancer, and early heart attack.

What really makes me angry are the know-nothings who, in the name of "natural," refuse to get their children vaccinated. Measles was virtually wiped out in the United States, and now, due to the anti-vaxers, large numbers of children are once again dying of measles.


----------



## Kieran

Double post, somehow


----------



## Kieran

I think that having too much faith in science leads to the culture where doctors just bang out prescriptions for any old ailment and patients become reliant on stuff like this. Herbal practitioners have huge history on their side, on what works and what doesn't. They're not just idiots in a cave cynically striking at the vulnerable. Well, no more than doctors of so-called conventional medicine are. I agree if anyone says they should be regulated and it's common in parts of Europe that doctors prescribe both, or either, herbs and drugs.

The preferable state for me is to use complimentary and natural medicine to help before things get too drastic, then if I need to, go to the docs. Fortunately, my doctor takes a holistic approach and is in favour of using natural remedies first. Only a risk-taker would rely wholly on herbs for serious life-threatening symptoms, when things have gone too far, but likewise only a risk-taker will burden their body with pharmaceutical drugs and chemicals for any slight ailments they suffer...


----------



## GreenMamba

Kieran said:


> I think that having too much faith in science leads to the culture where doctors just bang out prescriptions for any old ailment and patients become reliant on stuff like this.


Science doesn't mean taking pharmaceuticals rather than herbs, it means that if you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up with research.

What leads to the "culture where doctors just bang out prescriptions for any old ailment," isn't science, it's money. But money can have a pernicious influence on alternative and traditional medicine.


----------



## Kieran

GreenMamba said:


> Science doesn't mean taking pharmaceuticals rather than herbs, it means that if you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up with research.
> 
> What leads to the "culture where doctors just bang out prescriptions for any old ailment," isn't science, it's money. But money can have a pernicious influence on alternative and traditional medicine.


This is true, but I'm more thinking of the poor overworked GP who has 30 people in the waiting room and wants to spend five minutes with each (at €75 a pop) and hurls a prescription at the problem because it's scientifically proven that the drug will treat their symptoms - essentially wallpapering over a crack - instead of looking at the cause of the ailment and dealing with that instead. I have faced this myself a few years ago when I had to leave work due to illness and was fortunate my friend knew a doctor who took a more holistic approach, which dealt not only with the symptoms, but also the causes of the symptoms...


----------



## GreenMamba

I don't disagree with you about over-prescription, treating effects and not causes, etc. What this thread is getting at, though, is that a lot of stuff which claims to be natural or herbal isn't. 

There's also the irony that those who want the benefits of natural herbs often choose to consume it in its processed form (i.e., pills).


----------



## geralmar

FDA regulation of commercial supplements is minimal. We can thank a corrupt Congress for that.


----------



## Guest

I think it is really misleading to talk about conventional doctors not taking a holistic approach. Of course the overall health of a person affects every aspect of their life. If you have a conventional doctor that is not advocating that you eat healthy, get exercise, plenty of rest, drink plenty of water, etc., then you should immediately seek out a new doctor. 

Still, there are NUMEROUS illnesses that can still strike you down, even if your are in prime health. Some are definitely more of a risk to people with poor health and chronic conditions. As a diabetic, I am more at risk of numerous infections, including the flu, than the average healthy person. But there are numerous diseases that can cut people down in the prime of health, regardless of what herbs you ingest. Smallpox, the plague, polio, measles - they can infect healthy people. Bacteria - Salmonella, E. coli, Shigella, Tetanus, Anthrax - all these can easily infect healthy individuals.

Doctors screw up. Sometimes they prescribe incorrectly. That is a fault of the doctor, not the medication. I'm not sure how a course of antibiotics could cause years of recuperative care. The typical drug does not have a very long half-life - they are cleared rather quickly from the body - one of the reasons you usually have to take them daily. Yes - stronger antibiotics can clear out the natural bacterial flora in your intestinal system that aids with the normal digestion of food - resulting in some intestinal discomfort, probably some diarrhea. But it does not take very long to repopulate the gut with bacteria. Bacteria is everywhere - we ingest it all the time. If you want to speed things up, you can eat something like yogurt. But unless you are taking antibiotics for really long periods of time, I don't see them causing long term complications.


----------



## Guest

By the way - if you are taking vitamin pills, you are quite literally flushing your money down the toilet. Most vitamins are acquired very effectively through normal food. Taking them in pill form - they usually pass through your system and out into your urine before they can be effectively absorbed. I take a daily aspirin as a diabetic - I had been taking the enteric coated low dose aspirin. An older friend, who just had heart surgery, had his doctor tell him to take the chewable kind - the coated ones that you swallow whole don't dissolve well and you end up passing them.


----------



## Guest

geralmar said:


> FDA regulation of commercial supplements is minimal. We can thank a corrupt Congress for that.


Wrong. FDA falls under the Department of Health and Human Services, an executive branch department. Congress provides the funding, but doesn't control what the FDA does and doesn't do.


----------



## Morimur

Once again do your research and seek out god doctors who take a holistic, integral approach, and who have their patients' best interest at heart, and don't simply see dollar signs when you walk in the door. Don't take what one doctor tells you as gospel, seek out different opinions and inform yourself. Never trust a doctor who swears that his approach is the only way, in every situation. Be aware of the rampant corruption within the pharmaceutical/medical industries.


----------



## Couchie

tdc said:


> No, that doesn't have much to do with my point. You suggested that alternative medicine is a threat to society killing people - I pointed out that mainstream medicine is already doing a pretty effective job of that. You mentioned Steve Jobs and I pointed out hundreds of thousands of victims in America alone every year. As far as naturopaths I think they encompass a wide range of practices - admittedly not all effective. I have never gotten good results from a naturopath - but I've never been harmed by one either. I'm advocating self-education. Again I'm not saying professional doctors (whether naturopathic or conventional) are never useful or required.


You are conflating two issues here. The first is the validity of the _fundamental tenants _of the medicine and care administered. The second the the system of administration of that medicine. I'm not here to argue that the medical administration in America (or any country for that matter) is flawless. Of course doctors make mistakes as everybody else. Of course pharmaceutical companies are deeply invested in the successful approval of their products. Of course there are problems with distributing good healthcare over a large population.

The simple fact is that conventional medicine has a stringent and highly regulated process for establishing proof of effectiveness and safety. Alternative medicine has no standards. Holistic practitioners offer a range of services from herbal remedies which may or may not be effective for a specific ailment (very poor, if any, research has been done, and there is no quality control in the products) to useless but likely benign (homeopathy, magnetic field therapy), to unproven and potentially dangerous (coffee enemas).

When alternative medicine causes people to forgo conventional treatment though, it does become dangerous, even if the methods themselves are benign. The idea expressed several times in this thread of first seeking out alternative methods, and if those don't work, going back to conventional medicine, is an EXTREMELY STUPID one. In the event that you have a disease arising from an infectious pathogen for example, not only are alternative medications almost guaranteed to not work, but these illnesses are time-sensitive, your BEST chance of successful treatment and to avoid complications is aggressive treatment as early in the infectious disease lifecycle as possible. Same goes for cancer, the earlier you begin treatment the better. If you wait, fooling around with alternative medicine first, and the cancer metastasizes around the body, you have likely lost your window of chance for successful treatment through chemotherapy and other proven conventional methods (ie. Steve Jobs).


----------



## Couchie

Morimur said:


> Once again do your research and seek out god doctors who take a holistic, integral approach, and who have their patients' best interest at heart, and don't simply see dollar signs when you walk in the door. Don't take what one doctor tells you as gospel, seek out different opinions and inform yourself. Never trust a doctor who swears that his approach is the only way, in every situation. Be aware of the rampant corruption within the pharmaceutical/medical industries.


It's nice that a (private enterprise) holistic doctor gives me a leisurely appointment and listens and sympathizes and seems to really care about me, but that doesn't make up for the fact that his treatments are useless.


----------



## Ingélou

Unfortunately in the UK you can't 'seek out' doctors at all. You have the choice of a local practice, and often can't get an appointment ahead of time, and can only get an appointment on the day itself if you're one of the lucky ones whose phone call is answered at 8.00 a.m. 
Sometimes one has to go for over the counter remedies, because you just can't get to see a doctor unless you can say that it's an emergency.


----------



## Kieran

Couchie said:


> The idea expressed several times in this thread of first seeking out alternative methods, and if those don't work, going back to conventional medicine, is an EXTREMELY STUPID one.


Actually, it's a sign that people are beginning to get serious about their health, and not just taking a doctor's word for it. Now, I'm not anti-doctors, their knowledge and training is invaluable and beyond question, and heaven knows I've needed one on occasion, a good one, a doctor who looks at everything and doesn't just _ker-ching _for big pharma, but even still, for whatever smaller ailments I've suffered in the last fifteen years - and one larger one - I have rejected the idea of using drugs to cover up the symptoms and have gone natural instead, and dealt with the actual issue, not just the symptoms.

You get this, right? You know what this means? I means that I wanted to get better, not get drugged into dependence on a doctors scrawled signature. If the day comes when something too drastic happens to me, then I'll look at more severe methods of treatment, but for whatever has occurred to me over the last fifteen years, I've managed it without a single drug...


----------



## GreenMamba

DrMike said:


> By the way - if you are taking vitamin pills, you are quite literally flushing your money down the toilet.


This statement isn't true.


----------



## Ingélou

That is very strong minded of you, Kieran. :tiphat:

Myself, I am willing to use herbs and supplements, but Taggart has had some big medical problems where, basically, modern medicine saved his life. For example, in 2002, his kidneys failed and he had to be on dialysis for a month; and in the autumn, he had an emergency op for a strangulated hernia in his bowel. Without good modern doctors, he wouldn't be here.

I don't really see it as doctors vs complementary therapies; I think a mixture of both is best, but I certainly appreciate a doctor who doesn't just hand out antibiotics, and for myself I try to manage at home and not trouble a doctor if I can help it. 

There are 'disasters' in both forms of medicine, and there are blessings too.

What is certain is that we are not machines, and the mind has a great part to play in our health. For example, I should add that dialysis saved Taggart's life, but the consultant thought he'd never be off it, and I attribute the 'remarkable recovery' that he made (the consultant's words) to the power of prayer (our own, and other people's). Just as a nurse was telling us that we ought to adapt to a life spent on dialysis, his kidney function returned - thank God!


----------



## Kieran

Ingélou said:


> That is very strong minded of you, Kieran. :tiphat:
> 
> Myself, I am willing to use herbs and supplements, but Taggart has had some big medical problems where, basically, modern medicine saved his life. For example, in 2002, his kidneys failed and he had to be on dialysis for a month; and in the autumn, he had an emergency op for a strangulated hernia in his bowel. Without good modern doctors, he wouldn't be here.
> 
> I don't really see it as doctors vs complementary therapies; I think a mixture of both is best, but I certainly appreciate a doctor who doesn't just hand out antibiotics, and for myself I try to manage at home and not trouble a doctor if I can help it.
> 
> There are 'disasters' in both forms of medicine, and there are blessings too.
> 
> What is certain is that we are not machines, and the mind has a great part to play in our health. For example, I should add that dialysis saved Taggart's life, but the consultant thought he'd never be off it, and I attribute the 'remarkable recovery' that he made (the consultant's words) to the power of prayer. Just as a nurse was telling us that we ought to adapt to a life spent on dialysis, his kidney function returned - thank God!


In the same situation, Ingelou, I would take exactly the same treatment as Taggart. I'm glad it saved him, he's an incredible bloke! :tiphat:


----------



## GreenMamba

DrMike said:


> Wrong. FDA falls under the Department of Health and Human Services, an executive branch department. Congress provides the funding, but doesn't control what the FDA does and doesn't do.


Congress passed the Act which determines what the FDA can do (DSHEA) which provides the framework of what the FDA can do. E.g., they can't act prior to the supplement being on the shelf.

http://health.howstuffworks.com/wel...plements/fda-regulate-herbal-supplements2.htm


----------



## Couchie

Kieran said:


> but even still, for whatever smaller ailments I've suffered in the last fifteen years - and one larger one - I have rejected the idea of using drugs to cover up the symptoms and have gone natural instead, and dealt with the actual issue, not just the symptoms.


This is a ridiculous myth and also a profound expression of ignorance. Doctors diagnose the underlying condition based on a set of symptoms, they do not simply prescribe symptom relief. Once identified however, there is often no direct treatment for the underlying condition, and the best course of treatment is to manage symptoms to make you more comfortable while your body's immune response takes care of the underlying causes.

Of course, alternative medicine *always* has a treatment for the underlying causes, which you can have for an expensive consultation and pricey supplements! And their methods necessitate absolutely no modern scientific knowledge of biochemistry or pathology!

Remarkable!

Did it ever occur to you that herbals and natural supplements are also a *multi-billion dollar industry* of their own financial interests out to get money from impressionable people such as yourself who only need to be told about the conspiracies of pharmaceutical companies and the "medical establishment" and hearsay testimonials because you are ignorant of your own ignorance when it comes to understanding the science and scientific standards?


----------



## Kieran

Couchie said:


> This is a ridiculous myth and also a profound expression of ignorance. Doctors diagnose the underlying condition based on a set of symptoms, they do not simply prescribe symptom relief. Once identified however, there is often no direct treatment for the underlying condition, and the best course of treatment is to manage symptoms to make you more comfortable while your body's immune response takes care of the underlying causes.
> 
> Of course, alternative medicine *always* has a treatment for the underlying causes, which you can have for an expensive consultation and pricey supplements! And their methods necessitate absolutely no modern scientific knowledge of biochemistry or pathology!
> 
> Remarkable!
> 
> Did it ever occur to you that herbals and natural supplements are also a *multi-billion dollar industry* of their own financial interests out to get money from impressionable people such as yourself who only need to be told about the conspiracies of pharmaceutical companies and the "medical establishment" and hearsay testimonials because you are ignorant of your own ignorance when it comes to understanding the science and scientific standards?


You sound a bit anxious. I prescribe a nice cup of chamomile tea, to soothe your edges. :lol:


----------



## Couchie

Ingélou said:


> What is certain is that we are not machines, and the mind has a great part to play in our health. For example, I should add that dialysis saved Taggart's life, but the consultant thought he'd never be off it, and I attribute the 'remarkable recovery' that he made (the consultant's words) to the power of prayer (our own, and other people's). Just as a nurse was telling us that we ought to adapt to a life spent on dialysis, his kidney function returned - thank God!


That makes me recall a story I read about a veteran who had to have his leg amputated. His family prayed and prayed. Shortly afterward when the nurse was preparing to show him how to get used to a life of walking on a prosthetic, to everyone's shock, the leg had reappeared! The power of prayer!

Oh wait, that has never happened in the history of the world. God only heals the complex and poorly understood conditions that may or may not get better on their own.


----------



## Couchie

Kieran said:


> You sound a bit anxious. I prescribe a nice cup of chamomile tea, to soothe your edges. :lol:


I would, but I don't think I can afford your $200.00 consultation fee and $59.99 holistic organic detox chamomile tea.


----------



## Kieran

Couchie said:


> I would, but I don't think I can afford your $200.00 consultation fee and $59.99 holistic organic detox chamomile tea.


Box of tea for less than a fiver, the consultation I give you freely...


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> Once again do your research and seek out god doctors who take a holistic, integral approach, and who have their patients' best interest at heart, and don't simply see dollar signs when you walk in the door. Don't take what one doctor tells you as gospel, seek out different opinions and inform yourself. Never trust a doctor who swears that his approach is the only way, in every situation. Be aware of the rampant corruption within the pharmaceutical/medical industries.


The other doctors offer their services for free? How is it "alternative" doctors aren't also influenced by money? And are they not also at risk of being influenced by peddlers of herbal supplements and "natural" treatments? Or if they make their own, could that not also be seen as having a conflict of interest? I have never had a doctor protest when I asked for alternatives to courses of treatment. Obviously the first one they recommend is their preferred method - else why would they have mentioned it first? But I have regularly had doctors take me off medications that they felt were not working or providing any benefit. Or switching me from name-brand to generic. The main thing I look for is that they are prescribing courses of treatment that have been studied and shown to be efficacious - not just throwing out terms like "holistic" and "natural" and "supplement" and expecting me to be impressed by such things. In fact, whenever a new drug is discussed, they usually discuss with me thoroughly how they work, what the bonuses are, and what potential risks are involved.

It seems that what we have come around to here is not that conventional doctors are worse that "holistic" doctors, per se, but that patients should be involved in their healthcare decisions. I know it is fun to knock the pharmaceutical industry - it is an easy target, and easy to be targeted with conspiracy theories. Everybody has an anecdote of someone who the medication didn't work quite like the doctor said it would, and therefore it must be some nefarious scheme by drug company X to exploit our health for their profit. But I have been at the research end of things for a while, and have some first hand experience with just how hard it is to get a drug past all the clinical trials and safety analyses - it costs a LOT of money for a pharmaceutical company to get a drug from the initial phases through to FDA approval. The only drugs getting fast tracked are the ones that may help people who are in dire circumstances, and have a near certainty of death if no treatment is administered, so they will risk drugs then that might otherwise not be authorized. Otherwise, no. They aren't just throwing every drug out there that they like. Incidentally, if supplement makers aren't getting their products through FDA approval, it isn't because the FDA is treating them unfairly. It is because the "natural" companies are choosing not to submit their products for trial. The FDA doesn't come knocking on your door and ask if you have any drugs you would like them to test for you. You have to do the analyses that the FDA requires, then submit the data to them for review. If it passes muster, it gets FDA approval. So there is no conspiracy behind herbal supplements not getting FDA approval, except, perhaps, those companies purposely NOT submitting them for approval, so they don't have to validate the ingredients or show any kind of data that they actually do what they claim they do.


----------



## Morimur

DrMike said:


> The other doctors offer their services for free? How is it "alternative" doctors aren't also influenced by money? And are they not also at risk of being influenced by peddlers of herbal supplements and "natural" treatments? Or if they make their own, could that not also be seen as having a conflict of interest? I have never had a doctor protest when I asked for alternatives to courses of treatment. Obviously the first one they recommend is their preferred method - else why would they have mentioned it first? But I have regularly had doctors take me off medications that they felt were not working or providing any benefit. Or switching me from name-brand to generic. The main thing I look for is that they are prescribing courses of treatment that have been studied and shown to be efficacious - not just throwing out terms like "holistic" and "natural" and "supplement" and expecting me to be impressed by such things. In fact, whenever a new drug is discussed, they usually discuss with me thoroughly how they work, what the bonuses are, and what potential risks are involved.
> 
> It seems that what we have come around to here is not that conventional doctors are worse that "holistic" doctors, per se, but that patients should be involved in their healthcare decisions. I know it is fun to knock the pharmaceutical industry - it is an easy target, and easy to be targeted with conspiracy theories. Everybody has an anecdote of someone who the medication didn't work quite like the doctor said it would, and therefore it must be some nefarious scheme by drug company X to exploit our health for their profit. But I have been at the research end of things for a while, and have some first hand experience with just how hard it is to get a drug past all the clinical trials and safety analyses - it costs a LOT of money for a pharmaceutical company to get a drug from the initial phases through to FDA approval. The only drugs getting fast tracked are the ones that may help people who are in dire circumstances, and have a near certainty of death if no treatment is administered, so they will risk drugs then that might otherwise not be authorized. Otherwise, no. They aren't just throwing every drug out there that they like. Incidentally, if supplement makers aren't getting their products through FDA approval, it isn't because the FDA is treating them unfairly. It is because the "natural" companies are choosing not to submit their products for trial. The FDA doesn't come knocking on your door and ask if you have any drugs you would like them to test for you. You have to do the analyses that the FDA requires, then submit the data to them for review. If it passes muster, it gets FDA approval. So there is no conspiracy behind herbal supplements not getting FDA approval, except, perhaps, those companies purposely NOT submitting them for approval, so they don't have to validate the ingredients or show any kind of data that they actually do what they claim they do.


DrMike, your obvious defensiveness on the issue is understandable. This is an unfortunate side-effect of your narrow-minded indoctrination under an unrepentant and purely 'western' approach to medicine. The thought that there might be alternatives to treat _certain_ conditions seems to trouble you immensely-that is a shame. We do agree on one point: "...that patients should be involved in their healthcare decisions". An _integrative_ approach to healthcare is better than any _single_ approach. "I know it is fun to knock the pharmaceutical industry..." It's _not_ fun-it's sad that we can't trust an institution that is supposed help us remain in good health.


----------



## Taggart

Members are reminded of the ToS



> Be polite to your fellow members. If you disagree with them, please state your opinion in a »civil« and respectful manner.


Some posts have been deleted. Please be polite and civil at all times.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> DrMike, your obvious defensiveness on the issue is understandable. This is an unfortunate side-effect of your narrow-minded indoctrination under an unrepentant and purely 'western' approach to medicine. The thought that there might be alternatives to treat _certain_ conditions seems to trouble you immensely-that is a shame. We do agree on one point: "...that patients should be involved in their healthcare decisions". An _integrative_ approach to healthcare is better than any _single_ approach. "I know it is fun to knock the pharmaceutical industry..." It's _not_ fun-it's sad that we can't trust an institution that is supposed help us remain in good health.


I don't know what a western approach is. The medical treatment I advocate is that backed by scientific documentation of efficacy. I don't typically trust therapies that have nothing but anecdotal evidence. I am not sure what I am missing out on. As someone who suffers from a real diagnosed chronic condition (diabetes) I can tell you that Western medicine is working quite well. Through the guidance of my doctors, my blood sugar is well controlled, and I am losing weight. I thank the wonders of Western pharmaceutical science that produces the synthetic insulin that I inject regularly. I am kept quite well protected from infection by the vaccines that Western medicine has produced and distributed worldwide. On the occasions when I have contracted a bacterial sinus infection, the antibiotics prescribed by my Western doctor have cleared things up quite nice. On the rare occasion I have had a gout flare up, a wonderful new drug produced by a Western pharma company (for which they give me a discount card that makes it free for a year!) has brought me relief in less than a week. I have bloodwork done every three months, and even with this massive barrage on my body of non-natural Western medicines, all of my organs and major systems are functioning fine. And, for good measure, I even send a little money to the supplements industry by taking flaxseed oil to control my triglyceride levels.


----------



## Guest

Morimur said:


> DrMike, your obvious defensiveness on the issue is understandable. This is an unfortunate side-effect of your narrow-minded indoctrination under an unrepentant and purely 'western' approach to medicine. The thought that there might be alternatives to treat _certain_ conditions seems to trouble you immensely-that is a shame. We do agree on one point: "...that patients should be involved in their healthcare decisions". An _integrative_ approach to healthcare is better than any _single_ approach. "I know it is fun to knock the pharmaceutical industry..." It's _not_ fun-it's sad that we can't trust an institution that is supposed help us remain in good health.


Why don't the non-western practitioners simply put there methods and tratments up to the test and have them verified by experimentation for efficacy?
It is my skepticism that keeps me from trying "non-conventional" methods. I am very protective of my body. I don't do things to it simply because of anecdotal evidence. I want the studies that show they have a good chance of helping me. Western approaches provide me with that. Alternative ones don't.


----------



## Ingélou

spokanedaniel said:


> What the FDA and CU studies have shown is that there are no reputable sellers of herbs and supplements. Whether you get what the label says is a roll of the dice.
> 
> True. Not all herbal remedies are bad. But ALL herbal remedies are unreliable because you never know what you're getting due to lack of testing and oversight. Even if you take the natural plant, the dosages of the active ingredients is unknown, as they vary considerably from one specimen to the next.


I am all in favour of medicine and research; and sorry to hear of the parlous state of things in the USA. Here in Britain we do have some very good and trustworthy chemists - I don't know if I should mention the brand, but I can tell you if you pm. They have a historic reputation to keep up and their goods are very reliable. They produce all sorts of food supplements along with some herbal remedies, and they are known for their lab expertise.

There are also health shops I have used that seem trustworthy. My experience of herbal remedies is small - valerian, aloe vera, lemon balm, and so on - but whatever problem I had has always been alleviated.

Outlets that appear to promote a superstitious lifestyle or claim to help with serious conditions like cancer are certainly to be shunned, and should be better regulated.

My view is, whatever works, and whatever help you can get. Unfortunately, as I said, it's sometimes almost impossible to get to see a doctor for the minor illnesses in this country, and you have to get help from a pharmacist instead.

Complementary medicine also includes things like meditation and massage. One of my friends became a shiatsu practitioner and when she was qualifying, practised on me. It was very beneficial. As for meditation, I know someone with bipolar disorder. She takes all her medical drugs meticulously, but she also uses meditation to help keep herself on an even keel.

I am in no way condemning conventional medicine. My husband would not be alive today if the doctors hadn't saved him. But there is room for other approaches, and perhaps if there was more co-operation between complementary and 'conventional' medicine, things would be safer and better.

My viewpoint is simply that it seems harsh to write off complementary medicine as completely useless when many people - not me, particularly, but some of my friends - have been helped by it.


----------



## Guest

Ingélou said:


> I am all in favour of medicine and research; and sorry to hear of the parlous state of things in the USA. Here in Britain we do have some very good and trustworthy chemists - I don't know if I should mention the brand, but I can tell you if you pm. They have a historic reputation to keep up and their goods are very reliable. They produce all sorts of food supplements along with some herbal remedies, and they are known for their lab expertise.
> 
> My view is, whatever works, and whatever help you can get. Unfortunately, as I said, it's sometimes almost impossible to get to see a doctor for the minor illnesses in this country, and you have to get help from a pharmacist instead.
> 
> Complementary medicine also includes things like meditation and massage. One of my friends became a shiatsu practitioner and when she was qualifying, practised on me. It was very beneficial. As for meditation, I know someone with bipolar disorder. She takes all her medical drugs meticulously, but she also uses meditation to help keep herself on an even keel.
> 
> I am in no way condemning conventional medicine. My husband would not be alive today if the doctors hadn't saved him. But there is room for other approaches, and perhaps if there was more co-operation between complementary and 'conventional' medicine, things would be safer and better.
> 
> My viewpoint is simply that it seems harsh to write off complementary medicine when many people - not me, particularly - have been helped by it.


I can sympathize with the situation of not having ready access to a doctor, and seeking out alternatives. And I have no problem with various practices to supplement conventional medicine. I also can sympathize with the fear of over-medicating. I'm not sure I agree with the proliferation of more and more symptoms that now fall under the "autism spectrum disorder" for which there are a plethora of drugs to be heaped upon our children. If there is a genuine way of treating something without medication, that is the way to go. Despite what many may think, many, many doctors actually do try for that. The goal of my endocrinologist is to control my blood sugars and manage my health with a minimum of medication. He constantly works with me to increase my exercise and improve my diet - sending me to registered dietitians and so forth - to bring my weight down and decrease the amount of insulin I need to inject.

Mental well-being can have a dramatic impact on your health. I have noticed with my diabetes, for example, that high stress can definitely impact blood sugar levels. I think things like shiatsu massage, or meditation, have their primary benefit in helping relax an individual - which can definitely have a positive impact on general health. Conventional medicine recognizes this - most doctors will urge you to manage your stress, so if you have found ways to do that in pretty safe methods like shiatsu massage and meditation, great! I think faith also helps in this regard, and I definitely consider it a way that I use to manage my mental well being. Prayer and scripture study and enjoying time with my family, along with a healthy dose of listening to classical music, have a huge positive impact on my mental well-being, and thus are all to the good.

But I have problems when someone tells me to try this herb, because people have been using it for hundreds of years. Well, there are lots of treatments people used to use and swore by, but we now know they are actually harmful. Believe it or not, mercury used to be thought to be a useful therapeutic. Someone tells me an herb can help me - what is the basis for them knowing it will? How widely has it been tested? How much do I take? What if the strength varies from manufacturer to manufacturer? Or even from plant to plant? That is not mere speculation. For example, people are breeding different marijuana plants to have higher levels of the psychoactive component THC. Other things, including the nutrients available, etc., can have a huge impact on how much of the supposed active component is present. THAT is why controlled pharmaceuticals are so much safer. They know exactly what dose to give, and they know exactly how much is in the drug prescribed. Even over-the-counter drugs - you can read on the box exactly how much of the active compound is present per dose. Herbal supplements - even if the therapeutic potential is real - don't offer that. It is a crap shoot. Unless they have analyzed each batch of the source material for the amount of the active compound - which I doubt they do, as I'm pretty sure they couldn't even tell you what the active compound is - they can't tell you how one batch of supplements compares to another. You might go to the same person, buy the exact same supplement, and be getting a completely different dose each time. Dose is everything. The toxin of Clostridium botulinum, which is the cause of food botulism, is one of the deadliest toxins known to man. And yet a tiny amount injected under the skin is a common thing in the cosmetics industry - Botox. How did they know? Because someone went and tested it for other uses, and did a dose response curve, and found that, at extremely small doses, it was not deadly, and could be desirable as a cosmetic treatment. A scientist, or a pharmaceutical company, can provide to the consumer exactly the dose needed for that result. But if you were to just give someone Extract of C. Botulinum in supplement form, you are likely to kill them.

I'm not saying all supplements are bad. I'm not saying that there is no benefit. Some may be real - but we have the wonderful ability now to isolate specific compounds and use them, in controlled doses, rather than taking into our bodies unknown mixtures that may or may not even have enough of what it is we are hoping will do the trick. Have these companies put their supplements to the test. If it is proven effective, and safe, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I don't like rolling the dice that much with my health. At least with the pharmaceutical companies, I can see what the odds are.


----------



## spokanedaniel

Kieran said:


> I think that having too much faith in science leads to the culture where doctors just bang out prescriptions for any old ailment ...


The definition of "faith" is belief in the absence of evidence. Science is just the opposite: It's a set of tools for learning about our world through evidence. I have respect for the scientific method, not "faith" in it, and my respect is based on results. The scientific method works.



Kieran said:


> Herbal practitioners have huge history on their side, on what works and what doesn't.


Actually, they don't. It is true that herbs have been used as medicine throughout history, and that with very few exceptions they have never worked. Their use persisted in the era before science because people didn't understand how to establish efficacy. It persists today because of a lack of understanding among the public about what constitutes evidence.



GreenMamba said:


> Science doesn't mean taking pharmaceuticals rather than herbs, it means that if you are going to make a claim, you need to back it up with research.
> 
> What leads to the "culture where doctors just bang out prescriptions for any old ailment," isn't science, it's money. But money can have a pernicious influence on alternative and traditional medicine.


So true! Herbs and supplements are a multi-billion-dollar-a-year industry. What's more, when a doctor prescribes a drug, he charges for the consultation, not the drug. You buy the drug elsewhere. The doctor makes the same amount whether he writes a prescription or not. Many naturopaths sell the nostrums they prescribe, which is a clear (and very profitable) conflict of interest.



Kieran said:


> ... I'm more thinking of the poor overworked GP who has 30 people in the waiting room and wants to spend five minutes with each (at €75 a pop) and hurls a prescription at the problem because it's scientifically proven that the drug will treat their symptoms...


This shows a failure to understand evidence-based medicine. It is never "scientifically proven that [a] drug will treat [...] symptoms."

There exists a body of evidence, for any given drug, that it has certain effects and certain side effects under certain conditions. A doctor evaluates the patient's symptoms to get at the underlying problem, and prescribes the drug that seems to have the best chance of doing the most good with the least harm.

Unfortunately, many people demand drugs, and some doctors will give in to that demand. My doctor counsels against using drugs except when there's good evidence that they are needed.

A naturopath, unlike a doctor, prescribes (and sells) products that are sometimes powerful drugs and tells his customer that because it's "natural" it cannot hurt him. This is dishonest as well as unethical.



DrMike said:


> By the way - if you are taking vitamin pills, you are quite literally flushing your money down the toilet. Most vitamins are acquired very effectively through normal food. Taking them in pill form - they usually pass through your system and out into your urine before they can be effectively absorbed.


I was not aware that most vitamin pills are passed through without absorption, but there's pretty good evidence that vitamin pills are useless except in certain illnesses (which a doctor can diagnose and prescribe for). They are definitely a waste of money.



DrMike said:


> Wrong. FDA falls under the Department of Health and Human Services, an executive branch department. Congress provides the funding, but doesn't control what the FDA does and doesn't do.


Actually, the FDA is forbidden by law from regulating the safety and efficacy of "supplements." They only thing they can do is cite companies when the label claims ingredients which are not actually present, or fails to list ingredients that are present, or when products sold as supplements contain drugs which require a prescription. And they never even did this until just recently. It's been a decade or two since the CU study, and only just now that the FDA is acting. This is due to a few know-nothing senators who have put restrictions into the law, forbidding the FDA from regulating and overseeing the safety and efficacy of supplements, and legislating that supplements be regulated as foods rather than as the drugs they are.


----------



## mtmailey

DrMike said:


> What exactly does aging an herb do, other than dry it out? I'm not sure how aging an herb increases its efficacy.


Certain herbs are not meant to be used fresh therefore they must be aged.Certain herbs are cooked then used like in teas.


----------



## tdc

spokanedaniel said:


> The definition of "faith" is belief in the absence of evidence. Science is just the opposite: It's a set of tools for learning about our world through evidence. I have respect for the scientific method, not "faith" in it, and my respect is based on results. The scientific method works.


The problem is "science" has become like a religion for many people, to the point where it can lead to rigid skepticism and the inability to exhibit independent thought outside of mainstream "science". The scientific method has been shown to have the same problems as the other issues we have brought up in this thread - it can be corrupted by corporate interests. Studies that are contradictory to corporate interests often get buried, and funding to such studies is often very limited.

Studies that agree with corporate interests will be generally accepted much faster and promoted by mainstream media. Big business can often hide behind excuses like "we need more science" or "that's bad science", to anything they disagree with. This is going on today with many issues ranging from health to climate change, to head injuries in football. For example there have been many studies showing the direct link between head trauma received in football and later brain disorders. Since 1994 the commissioner of the NFL's stance on this issue has been "we need more studies". Well its been over 20 more years now, and we still need more studies? Or is he just waiting for the right "studies" to come along that agree with his beliefs? There are plenty of examples of this kind of thing in all of these different areas. To treat modern science as some infallible truth, is completely naïve.


----------



## tdc

Couchie said:


> When alternative medicine causes people to forgo conventional treatment though, it does become dangerous, even if the methods themselves are benign. The idea expressed several times in this thread of first seeking out alternative methods, and if those don't work, going back to conventional medicine, is an EXTREMELY STUPID one. In the event that you have a disease arising from an infectious pathogen for example, not only are alternative medications almost guaranteed to not work, but these illnesses are time-sensitive, your BEST chance of successful treatment and to avoid complications is aggressive treatment as early in the infectious disease lifecycle as possible. Same goes for cancer, the earlier you begin treatment the better. If you wait, fooling around with alternative medicine first, and the cancer metastasizes around the body, you have likely lost your window of chance for successful treatment through chemotherapy and other proven conventional methods (ie. Steve Jobs).


Really it sounds like you haven't actually looked into alternative healing very much, it is more like you are quoting certain ideas expressed to you in textbooks (what is their agenda?). Without doing very much independent research. At the end of this rant in reality all you have is one example for your scare tactics - Steve Jobs. That is not very convincing evidence.


----------



## Couchie

tdc said:


> Really it sounds like you haven't actually looked into alternative healing very much, it is more like you are quoting certain ideas expressed to you in textbooks (what is their agenda?). Without doing very much independent research. At the end of this rant in reality all you have is one example for your scare tactics - Steve Jobs. That is not very convincing evidence.


"Independent research" being what? A PhD from the University of Google and reading psuedoscientific quack websites?


----------



## Giordano

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Marketing to Doctors

"Pharmaceutical companies spend billions of dollars marketing drugs to doctors.
We have a few issues with that."


----------



## tdc

Couchie said:


> "Independent research" being what? A PhD from the University of Google and reading psuedoscientific quack websites?


No, but checking other sources - yes, and gaining a familiarity with the basic principles of using diet and herbs for health use. Its not that complicated. It is actually simple and cheap, and allows one to gain a very intuitive sense of ones own body. If you were familiar with these principles I think you would have a much more balanced view that isn't so rigid and dogmatic. Your promotion of fear tactics with very little evidence (or well-rounded knowledge) to support your claims is a sign you aren't doing a lot of independent thinking on this matter - yet ironically hiding behind the guise of "science".


----------



## Couchie

tdc said:


> No, but checking other sources - yes, and gaining a familiarity with the basic principles of using diet and herbs for health use. Its not that complicated. It is actually simple and cheap, and allows one to gain a very intuitive sense of ones own body. If you were familiar with these principles I think you would have a much more balanced view that isn't so rigid and dogmatic. Your promotion of fear tactics with very little evidence (or well-rounded knowledge) to support your claims is a sign you aren't doing a lot of independent thinking on this matter - yet ironically hiding behind the guise of "science".


There are nutritionists who practice within the realm of evidence-based medicine and nutritional guidelines issued by medical authorities after reviews of the scientific literature and meta studies. If you want to optimize your diet for your health there's no need to consult witch doctors who promise benefits beyond that which there is evidence for.


----------



## tdc

Couchie said:


> There are nutritionists who practice within the realm of evidence-based medicine and nutritional guidelines *issued by medical authorities* after reviews of the scientific literature and meta studies. If you want to optimize your diet for your health there's no need to consult witch doctors who promise benefits beyond that which there is evidence for.


Its those so-called "authorities" we should question. Self-education is the best education - experience is a 1000x greater than book learning. Praising "evidence" (which can be supressed and manufactured at times) when not using common sense is not a helpful approach.

I'm thinking about marinasabina's post #31 now again where they refer to the "real problems" within the medical industry, (that they still haven't expanded on) I'm assuming they are referring to cures for cancer maybe? Or stem cell research?

If it is true that a corporation's top priority is profit, I ask what incentive do you think these big businesses have for curing _any_ disease?


----------



## Couchie

tdc said:


> Its those so-called "authorities" we should question. Self-education is the best education - experience is a 1000x greater than book learning. Praising "evidence" (which can be supressed and manufactured at times) when not using common sense is not a helpful approach.
> 
> I'm thinking about marinasabina's post #31 now again where they refer to the "real problems" within the medical industry, (that they still haven't expanded on) I'm assuming they are referring to cures for cancer maybe? Or stem cell research?
> 
> If it is true that a corporation's top priority is profit, I ask what incentive do you think these big businesses have for curing _any_ disease?


The same can be said of herbal medicators. I mean, they cater to people such as yourself who take their products with testimonials and conspiracy theories as a substitute for demonstrated clinical efficacy, why should they release an effective product when they can give you *anything* and you convince yourself it's working through wishful thinking and the placebo effect?


----------



## geralmar

DrMike said:


> By the way - if you are taking vitamin pills, you are quite literally flushing your money down the toilet. Most vitamins are acquired very effectively through normal food. Taking them in pill form - they usually pass through your system and out into your urine before they can be effectively absorbed. I take a daily aspirin as a diabetic - I had been taking the enteric coated low dose aspirin. An older friend, who just had heart surgery, had his doctor tell him to take the chewable kind - the coated ones that you swallow whole don't dissolve well and you end up passing them.


Some years ago my wife dragged me to a meeting of the local chamber of commerce. After the meeting I overheard the owner of a septic tank cleaning service chatting with the chamber director. The owner said that after pumping he kept noticing numerous pills at the bottom of many tanks. Curious, he finally examined the pills. They were all completely intact Centrum tablets.


----------



## spokanedaniel

tdc said:


> ... rigid skepticism ...


The above term is an oxymoron. Skepticism is by definition following the evidence wherever it leads. Skepticism means taking nothing on authority and demanding evidence for all claims.

There is no grand conspiracy to deprive us of some mythical ancient knowledge. Life before evidence-based medicine was harsh and brutal. Huge numbers of people died of tuberculosis in their 20's. Infant mortality and death in childbirth were the rule, not the exception. And all those "wise" practitioners of "natural" medicine, just like doctors in the age before evidence-based medicine, didn't even know to wash their hands.

All corporations are in business to make money, and promote their products to retailers and end users. That includes drug companies AND the sellers of herbs and supplements. BOTH types of companies push their wares to practitioners. The difference is that doctors have evidence upon which to base their prescriptions, while naturopaths do not, because herb and supplement companies conduct no proper studies of their products, and more often than not do not even bother to put the ingredients in their bottles that they list on the label.

I fail to understand how anyone can argue in favor of "remedies" that are so poorly controlled that more than half the time there's little correlation between the label and the contents of the bottle. Even if you believe that wolfsbane will cure your gout (I made that one up) what's the point when the bottle labelled "wolfsbane" doesn't actually have any wolfsbane in it?


----------



## Guest

geralmar said:


> Some years ago my wife dragged me to a meeting of the local chamber of commerce. After the meeting I overheard the owner of a septic tank cleaning service chatting with the chamber director. The owner said that after pumping he kept noticing numerous pills at the bottom of many tanks. Curious, he finally examined the pills. They were all completely intact Centrum tablets.


I find it quite disturbing that this individual was closely examining the contents of septic tanks. I have had my septic tank pumped recently, and not had a great desire to get anywhere close!


----------

