Holistic Doctors, and medicine

Per your quote the power to self-heal is called the vital force. The process of maintaining a healthy internal balance is called homeostasis.Homeostasis is not the vital force per your quote. Read your own paragraph please.As for dancing, it's difficult to dance when there isn't any music.I'd appreciate it if you would stick to discussing my actual position, if you even know what it is, and not create your own for me.I have asked twice (Message 201 and Message 205), what do you think my position is?

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

quote:

---

Er, the incentive is to prove that it is safe and effective, so that one can sell it.

---

quote:

---

Do you still think that untested treatments "have their place" right alongside tested treatments in healthcare?

---

Never did.In a perfect world, we could say that nothing that hasn't passed rigorous testing should ever be used or consumed by humans or our food supply. Unfortunately it isn't a perfect world. Money, media, politics, and public demands influence the outcome.The average populace has suffered through the results of scientific tests and have watched these results change again and again. Eggs have been in and out of favor over the years. The low fat diet that doctors and nutritionists touted and my husband and I followed for 18 years apparently hasn't really been proven to help people live longer. Unfortunately the only thing that was low fat was the diet. Once we stopped the low fat diet our weight went down. Several Theories of Heart Disease OriginDrugs that were tested and deemed safe, but pulled after long term effects are found to be detrimental or unforeseen side effects appear. This is the culture we are in right now. People will exploit those concerns to make money and/or gain power.The FDA has approved a contraceptive for continuous use. (Lybrel) I read an article, I think it was in MAMM, that expressed concern by MDs dealing with women's health. The studies were only for a year, they have no idea the long term effect of a woman not having a period for over a year. Cancer is obviously one concern and iron build up is another. We really don't know if the risks outweigh the health benefits long term.Scientists may determine that we can do something, but who has the job of deciding whether we should?The drawing card for CAM is that most of the natural remedies have been used for 100's if not 1000's of years with supposedly no ill effects and supposedly work. Good personal testimony is just as strong as bad personal testimony.I do agree with the key principles expressed at NCCAM. I have no intention of taking up the cause for every naturopath or naturopathic site. I've already made it known several times that rules and regs need to be established for this profession because I don't feel that we should lose access to these types of principles; but we need a way to weed out the quacks.I agree that the treatments and concepts should be tested by scientists, if they haven't already, to see if they work as intended. We don't necessarily have to understand why it works. That may come with time.I also agree that supplements need some sort of regulation to ensure consistency. I don't agree that everyone can realistically get all their needed nutrition from their food supply. It would depend on how much nutrition the food actually contains and that's not consistent either.People have voiced that they want a choice of natural over synthetic. I agree that natural may not always be better or safer, but the same goes for synthetic. The point is to have a choice.There are always going to be people who go to extremes, whether too much or too little. There's nothing we can do about that. There are always going to be "quacks" taking advantage of weakness, anger, fear, or confusion. We deal with them when they pop up.CAM is going through a process. Only time will tell how treatments and concepts that work will be incorporated into modern medicine.You deem me to be without reason because of one concept that you disagree with; but I find no risk in trying. That's your prerogative. I've never worried to much about public approval. Right now I'm healthy and I feel good. I've had a good life and should I die tomorrow, I have no regrets.That's all I really have to say on this topic.

quote:

---

If there is more than one active ingredient, and you only extract one of them, you are bound to get results other than intended. The lesson here is to extract all the active ingredients and reject the non-active or detrimental ones.

---

Understood. My comment was referring to the article on MaHuang which stated: In this instance the stems supposedly lower blood pressure, whereas the alkaloid raises blood pressure.I don't know if the case with this herb is due to not getting all the active ingredients or deals more with the idea that the whole herb action is more of a synergistic activity of many ingredients and not just the active one(s).

quote:

---

Au contraire.

​

Should you wish to see the thousands of papers that have been written on vitamins, I again refer you to scholar.google or pubmed (link here).

---

Please refer us to a specific paper that shows that the pharmaceutical industry tested a natural vitamin or herb extensively so that they could market that natural product, as opposed to creating a synthetic version or portion that could be patented.

quote:

---

Retinol, Lindalou? (It's a patented form of vitamin A.)

---

Supposedly we cannot patent something that occurs in nature and Vitamin A only occurs in animal products.
Are you saying that we can patent that which occurs in nature?Synthetic versions, however, can be patented.
Who holds the patent on natural retinol?

quote:

---

Modern medicine is responsible for saving millions of lives in the past 100 years.

​

Can you say the same for your "alternative medicine"?

---

Irrelevant. As I've said before. Each has its place. I don't know of any CAM treatment (haven't looked either) that deal with fixing broken bones, organ transplants, internal bleeding, etc. But some CAM alternatives could assist the patient in recovery from such medical issues. I showed this with the Johns Hopkins link earlier.It doesn't have to be an all or nothing venture. If allopathic is unable to fix something, why is it bad if naturopathic or homeopathic work? Yes, there are instances when they don't work, just like there are instances when allopathic doesn't work. We aren't all carbon copies and one size doesn't necessarily fit all.I feel it would be a sad day for humans if we have to rely on only one method for our health.

Applying for a patent and getting one are two different things.Your link for meningitis bacteria states that Human Genome Sciences has attempted to patent. The question is, did they get it?The coal purifying bacteria strains were developed, not discovered in nature. Again there is a difference. Afaxin is a synthetic and therefore can be patented. The softgel formulation again is a concoction not a patent on natural retinol itself. While we supposedly can't patent that which occurs in nature, we can patent a combination of natural things. I'm sure there is a criteria to meet for a patent, I don't know the specifics.I asked: Please refer us to a specific paper that shows that the pharmaceutical industry tested a natural vitamin or herb extensively so that they could market that natural product, as opposed to creating a synthetic version or portion that could be patented.Rath and Pauling are not considered part of the pharmaceutical industry. What they patented was a method, not a natural vitamin.

quote:

---

These vitamins are synthetic only in that they are manufactured. Chemically, structurally, and functionally they are identical to the natural versions.

---

Could you show that they are identical please?

quote:

---

Are you suggesting there might exist more than one way to make a Vitamin A molecule?

---

No, I'm asking molbiogirl to support her statement:

You stated in Message 230: I asked that you show me that they are chemically, structurally, and functionally identical to their natural counterparts.Didn't take chemistry 101. Sorry! Use Vitamin A as the example and show me. Does the synthetic have the same side effects as the natural, is it absorbed into the body the same as the natural? If that's not what you mean by functionally, then you need to explain clearly what you mean by chemically, structurally, and functionally.As far as patents go, I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying. This isn't synthetic vs natural.A patent is a set of exclusive rights granted by the government to an inventor for a limited amount of time.Inventor is the key word. Supposedly we can't patent what is found naturally in nature because we didn't invent it. Finding a new strain is different than developing a new strain. There is vitamin C in an orange, but mankind did not invent it; we discovered it. So no one can patent it, but if we make a synthetic version, then we can.If you have evidence that the US government allows people to patent something natural that has not been changed by man, then provide it. It isn't my job to go looking for it.

You're still aren't understanding the patent process.Methods can be patented because they are invented by man. Your two examples are methods being patented. I haven't disagreed with this. Patents are for that which is manmade.The article concerning the mice deals with modified mice. The statement that Canada allows single-celled organisms, such as yeasts and bacteria, and GM crops to be patented. in the context of the article would mean those items are modified. You would need to show that they or actually the United States allows unmodified organisms to be patented.A synthetic drug is manmade, therefore it can be patented. We cannot patent the vitamin C in an orange. We can patent the process of extraction, but not the vitamin C itself.A genetically altered or hybrid (created by man) soybean can be patented; but species that were not developed by man cannot.Do you understand the difference yet?

quote:

---

If the molecular structure is the same (as it is with vitamin C, vitamin A, vitamin E, etc.), it is the same substance.

---

I did read it, thank you.Vitamin E How well the body absorbs or makes use of the synthetic vs the natural is also a factor. Will one build up in body and the other one not. I don't see that your statement can really be considered all encompassing. The importance is how they function with our bodies, not that they look the same and behave the same in a lab.As I understand it the underlying point of some CAM approaches today is about helping the body to heal itself. Looking at how our biological functions interact and dealing accordingly. Once we get rid of the quackery and the rivalry hopefully our health care can benefit from what is learned.

quote:

---

There is no difference between "synthetic" vitamin C and the vitamin C in an orange. No difference. At all. Period.

​

Your bare assertion to the contrary makes no sense.

---

I've made no such assertion. Actually, I agree. Most of the vitamin C in products (even from health food stores) is synthetic.In Message 228 I stated: Supposedly we cannot patent something that occurs in nature and Vitamin A only occurs in animal products. Are you saying that we can patent that which occurs in nature?So that you don't lose sight of what sparked my first comment, here is LindaLou's comment you were responding to: Her point was that the pharmaceutical industry is not going to spend money to extensively test natural vitamins because they can't patent natural vitamins. You disagreed.So far you haven't shown me that in the United States we are allowed to patent that which occurs naturally in nature, which means humans had nothing to do with it. Patents are for inventions made by man. IOW, we can't patent the vitamin C molecule extracted from an orange to my knowledge.You also haven't shown me that the pharmaceutical industry has tested a natural vitamin or herb extensively so that they could market that natural product, as opposed to creating a synthetic version or portion that could be patented. Message 228I also made no claim concerning synthetic and natural vitamins. I simply asked you to support your comment in Message 230. Now if by "these vitamins" you were only referring to Vitamin A or C, I apologize for misunderstanding your comment.If you were referring to all vitamins, then the article you provided (NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC SUBSTANCES RELATED TO HUMAN HEALTH; Pure Appl.Chem., Vol.74, No.10, pp.1957-1985, 2002.) said otherwise. It showed that natural and synthetic Vitamin E have differences in how they behave. If there is absolutely no difference between the natural and synthetic, why make the synthetic?If there is absolutely no difference between the natural and the synthetic, then there isn't anything wrong with choosing the natural over the synthetic.

quote:

---

A pitbull is a modified dog.

​

Is it manmade?

---

If man purposely bred two species, then yes it is "manmade". Now whether the US patent office allows patents for new animal breeds, I don't know. I'm not sure that it is worth the expense since creating a new breed of animal is rather time consuming. There are usually registries for various animal breeds. I'm not really sure what the pit bull has to do with our discussion concerning patenting natural vitamins.

quote:

---

You made the distinction between vitamin C "in nature" and manmade vitamin C. And I repeat. Because there is no structural difference, the patents are on "something found in nature".

---

My first mention of vitamin C in Message 237 was an illustration concerning patents. Apparently a bad example. I wasn't really arguing Vitamin C specifically. If they truly can't tell the difference, then I doubt if anyone holds a patent on Vitamin C. You can use any vitamin or herb you want. The original point was that we supposedly can't get patents on that which occurs naturally in nature. You haven't shown me that we can yet.

quote:

---

You can repeat ad nauseum that manmade vitamin C is not "natural" all you like. It doesn't change the fact that:

​

Both the manmade and "natural" versions are structurally, chemically, and functionally the same.

---

Hard to repeat what I haven't said. You're making an argument where there isn't one. I've been discussing patents.The only position I have in our discussion is that we supposedly can't patent something that occurs naturally in nature.Your examples have not shown me otherwise. Transgenic animals do not occur naturally in nature. Man has tampered with them.Here is an article that hopefully will help you understand my point concerning natural substances. The Promise and Problems of Natural Substances in Medicine

quote:

---

Penicillin is manufactured industrially, too. Do you complain when your penicillin isn't secreted by a fungi?

---

In Message 230 you stated: I simply asked you to show that they were identical. As I said, I haven't had chemistry 101. You had a chance to teach me something and you chose to create an argument where there wasn't any and unfortunately didn't teach me anything.

Good to see you're finally getting the picture, but my info isn't wrong.Note this line in your article: So the patent still isn't technically on the substance as it occurs in nature. The patent is on what man has isolated and purified. Yes it is a way around the system, but it still stands that we cannot patent a naturally occurring phenomenon. Until you understand that, you will be off course in your arguments just like you were with me.Now for natural and synthetic. Natural means nothing more than it occurs naturally in nature. Synthetic simply means manmade not that it isn't made from natural substances. People have to understand this if they don't want to be suckered by quacks from either side of the fence.So there is natural vitamin C and synthetic vitamin C. One occurs naturally in nature and the other is made in a lab. The molecules may be exactly the same in the categories you stated, but the delivery system is different.When I ingest natural vitamin C by eating an orange I get some Protein, Fat, Fiber, Water, Vitamin A, Vitamin E, B vitamins, Calcium, Magnesium, Zinc, Potassium, and Phosphorus.What I get when I ingest synthetic vitamin C depends on how it is packaged.Notice I have not claimed that one is better or worse than the other.Do you understand the differences concerning what I've said in this post?

quote:

---

How can anyone patent anything without isolating it first?

​

Your line of reasoning is flawed, to say the least.

---

Actual the line from your source is: "isolated and purified".Not just isolated. Again something has to be changed, even minutely, before it can be patented.This isn't my line of reasoning. It belongs to the patent office. Their rules, not mine. Your own sources back up what I'm saying.

quote:

---

The fact remains, vitamins have been patented.

---

I have already agreed that synthetic ones can be patented.If you feel that natural vitamin molecules have been patented, then show me. I've been waiting since Message 228.You haven't provided me with that example yet.

You're arguing with the patent office. They say "isolate and purify" not "or".

quote:

---

And I can't "show" you "natural" vitamin C when you continue to insist that if I obtain vitamin C from an orange, it's synthetic vitamin C because I've isolated and purified it!

---

It isn't my insistence. Those are the rules of the patent office.If the natural vitamin C molecule is isolated and purified, then the natural vitamin C molecule is not patented.
IOW, there can't be any patent infringement by using the natural molecule.From what I've read in the sources you and I have provided, scientists don't want people or companies to be able to patent natural substances.You're running out of time. Do you have an example or not?

Again that terminology is from the Patent Office. Argue with them.If they truly mean the same thing, then stating that something is isolated and purified is redundant. Timeline of Physiology - Endocrinology & Metabolism