Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine

So show me a patent on a natural vitamin molecule that is unchanged.
You haven't shown me yet.

quote:

---

To isolate and purify is redundant!

---

I think I said that it was a way around the system. Like I also said, not my rules. It is the patent office. You'll have to take it up with them.This reference is fascinating to read. Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 4/Friday, January 5, 2001/Notices
Utility Examination GuidelinesIt brings up another requirement of receiving a patent. It also gives us an idea of how the terms isolated and purified are considered different. Fascinating as it is, this reference doesn't make your case that natural vitamins have been patented or can be patented.You stated in Message 290. Show me an example of a patented natural vitamin.
Show me an example of a patented synthetic vitamin.

quote:

---

There's no objective or biological test for depression. Its presence and degree, and its absence, are purely subjective.

---

Which is one of the reasons it is difficult to diagnose in young children. My daughter wasn't diagnosed with clinical depression until she was 15. We spent years and a lot of money trying to find out what her problem was.She was diagnosed through the use of a 400 question test. A low dose of Zoloft helped with her chemical imbalance, but an doctor turnover resulted in a new MD that didn't understand that she didn't have a previous happy feeling to return to so he kept upping the dosage until she started having reactions. He said it wasn't the Zoloft, but my daughter and I felt differently. I lowered the dosage myself, then we changed to a psychiatrist. She did better on the lower dosage.Not one of those things you can take a blood test for unfortunately.

The original point was that we supposedly can't get patents on that which occurs naturally in nature. We can't patent vitamins.IOW, the argument is that Big Parma doesn't test natural vitamins extensively because they can't patent the vitamin and get back the cost of the testing.From the supplemental side, they claim they shouldn't have to put millions into testing vitamins because they can't patent them and make back the money they put into testing. (Please don't turn these into my arguments.)You claimed that that which occurs naturally in nature can be patented (Message 230) and that vitamins have been patented. (Message 290)Although it took us quite a while, we can conclude that your above statements were incorrect.You've lost sight of the discussion again. It isn't about natural and unnatural. It is about what can and can't be patented.Like I said in Message 300 of the other thread: 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.

quote:

---

You know, using your definition of "natural", there can be no "natural" vitamin supplements. At all.

​

Earlier you were arguing that vitamin supplements containing "natural" (i.e. plant or animal derived) compounds and those containing "manmade" (synthesized in a lab) compounds were different.

---

Again, you're seeing arguments that aren't there.In Message 237 I simply asked that you show me that they are chemically, structurally, and functionally identical to their natural counterparts. I made no claim. Remember, I didn't take chemistry 101.My argument concerning their difference as I explained in the same post deals with getting a patent. In that respect, they are different as per the Patent Office rules. Natural vs synthetic, which remember synthetic does not mean it isn't made from natural compounds. It just means it was created or altered by man.In Message 254 I stated: I've made no such assertion. Actually, I agree. Most of the vitamin C in products (even from health food stores) is synthetic.

quote:

---

Are you NOW suggesting that there are no "natural" vitamin pills?

---

We haven't been talking about vitamin pills.

quote:

---

By defining an isolated compound (and this includes genes, DNA fragments, vitamins) as a "not naturally occurring", they can patent NATURAL compounds without violating patent law.

---

I'm glad you finally understand.

quote:

---

I said that extracted vitamins have been patented.

---

In Message 22, I provided links to your statements. The above is not what you stated.In Message 11, I also gave you the option of showing me that a synthetic vitamin can be patented. You chose not to do that either.You have not shown your statements to be correct.

quote:

---

I could go on, but I think it's patently (hah!) obvious that I'm right.

---

Yes, it is patently obvious that you still don't understand the difference between patenting the process or method of creating a synthetic vitamin or extracting a natural vitamin and patenting the natural or synthetic vitamin.Of the examples you provided, the Polyethoxylated vitamin E and the Vitamin B.sub.6-phosphate phosphatase seem to be patents on the vitamins and the process.I'm not sure what you're crowing about. The Polyethoxylated Vitamin E would be considered synthetic and the VB6PP has been isolated and purified. The naturally occurring vitamins have not been patented.Polyethoxylated vitamin E Vitamin B.sub.6-phosphate phosphatase Notice they are also patenting the process for producing these vitamins.You have not shown me that we can patent natural vitamins, but it appears we can patent synthetic vitamins as I said very early in this discussion and you so kindly quoted.Extraction changes the location of the vitamin. So per the patent office we can patent what is isolated and purified.So when those you deem "quacks" say they can't patent a natural vitamin, they are speaking the truth.Bellowing vague absolutes like vitamins can be patented does nothing to help your case. The statement isn't totally true.In our discussion we have discovered that we cannot patent a natural vitamin, but we can patent a synthetic vitamin.This isn't about whether we like the politics of the process or not. It is about what we are allowed to do at this time. What hoops do we have to jump through to get a patent.

Please fix the links to my quotes, so that they are actually to the posts that hold the quotes.I'm not going to rehash these with you, but readers need to be able to get to the correct posts so they can read the quotes in context.Thanks

Hey Mod,I have a question and I'm asking you because I feel you will give a kind and informative answer for a layman. I've had no chemistry classes.The chemical name for vitamin C is L-Ascorbic acid plus a few others.Is this the chemical name of the synthetic vitamin?I've seen the argument that a difference in natural and synthetic vitamins is in how they deal with plane-polarized light.
Their chemical and physical properties may be identical, but their ability to rotate plane-polarized light isn't.Is this true?

quote:

---

I am getting very weary of these lists of clinical studies. Tell me. Did you read the abstracts of any of them before you cut and pasted them here? Do you know why any of these studies were conducted? Why these particular doses of these substances would be given to anyone, what the circumstances would be? What were the amounts of the vitamins and minerals used, and in what form? Do you know? Do you care? This is all important information. When you show an interest in actually looking in detail at one of these studies, I will be willing to engage in a more detailed discussion.

---

Thank you, thank you, thank you. It is interesting that we don't get links to these wonderful studies. I found this article dealing with synergy which references the first study on her list in Message 70.
(1) The Synergistic Approach: The Future of Nutrition TherapyAnd this abstract concerning the study.
(2) Procarcinogenic and anticarcinogenic effects of beta-carotene.The study deals more with synergy not just megadosing. According to the first article, beta carotene needs Vitamins E & C to keep it from oxidizing. Supposedly smoking decreases the levels of Vitmains E & C in the tissue. The study doesn't seem to address nonsmokers.Both articles favor a synergistic approach to using nutrients. That's one of the things we have to watch when trying to maintain health as naturally as possible. We don't want to fall into the trap of using isolated vitamins as cures. We don't eat isolated vitamins. We eat foods containing many vitamins.Synergy is the key. Much as we would like to believe that all health fields are only concerned about our wellbeing, we have to accept that marketing strategies aren't really looking out for our wellbeing. They're concerned about lining their pockets. Even those selliing vitamins tend to take advantage of our allopathic paradigm.All we can do is try to learn as much as we can and find an individual or individuals within our own areas who can cover our individual needs for healthcare.Unfortunately in a debate setting, opposing sides are more concerned with presenting the information that supports their position and not necessarily to give their opposition the whole picture.So a learning experience is not always possible, sad to say. Sometimes it is possible to glean some new insight even if it isn't what the opposition intended us to see.Hint: Don't take their monkey's on your back.

quote:

---

Sometimes drugs and surgery are necessary, I've never denied that here.

---

That's one of the difficulties in this debate.My own position is that it isn't an all or nothing situation. There are situations that only allopathic medicine can deal with and there are things that the natural approach does better. There are also situations, where the two can complement each other in restoring us to health.Double blind studies are nice, but sometimes we are in a situation where the allopathic isn't working. In desperation to feel better we search elsewhere. People have found relief from complementary or alternative medicine (CAM).While anecdotal results do not have the double blind stamp of approval, when we are in a position of need, we don't have time to wait for scientists to take interest, find the money and run the tests that might meet our needs. Anecdotes give us something to research or spark questions to ask, even when it is something that another allopath did differently.IMO, anecdotes also spark scientists to do the testing. Tribal anecdotes are what sparked scientists to test natural elements in search of cures.People take risks with their lives; whether smoking, alcohol, driving, sports, etc. Unless we are unconscious adults supposedly have an option of what risk they will take, even when it comes to medical procedures. Fortunately, I have not been in a life threatening situation where more than one option with varying risk factors were involved.I have agreed many times since the beginning of this discussion that laws, procedures, etc. need to be put in place to protect the average person from quacks. But I don't agree that the natural approach should be abandoned or made inaccessible.The problem for the average person right now, as we have seen in this debate, are dueling scientists or medical doctors. It leaves the average person in a quandary, because those are the people who are supposed to have the knowledge. The average person also knows from history that ideas deemed "crazy" sometimes prove to be viable. So the argument that mainstream doesn't accept the practice is no longer a strong selling point. Ridiculed Discoverers, Vindicated MavericksThe bottom line is we aren't carbon copies. What works well for one person doesn't always work well for another. References from others are what we use to discern whose services to try, whether mechanics, hair dressers, doctors, dentists, etc. Even in something as benign as a plumber, we don't all have the same good/bad experience. The same goes for allopathic or CAM.Anecdotes of problems experienced serve to help someone in a similar situation to ask better questions, but I don't feel we should tell others to abstain. They have to weigh the choices and the risks themselves. They may know someone with a good experience in the same situation.As I said, we aren't carbon copies. What works for one, may or may not work for another and vice versa.

quote:

---

ND's and other non-scientific practitioners and manufactuers generate fabulous profits while encouraging people to take often completely unknown risks with their health.

---

Some do and some don't generate fabulous profits. It's common practice, in the US anyway, for people to take advantage of loopholes to make money before the holes are closed.

quote:

---

If a natural approach to any particular disease or condition is shown to be effective and safe, as many have, then they become part of mainstream medicine. If an herb or procedure is demonstrated to be worthless, it absolutely should be abandoned or made inaccessable. The responsibility for demonstrating safety and efficacy should fall upon the manufacurers, and they should do so before they are permitted to profit.

---

In a perfect world, yes; but politics and money prevail. Politically it is dangerous to deem something as absolutely worthless and of use to absolutely no one considering there are billions of individuals in the US and we aren't carbon copies.Remember the FDA's use of safe doesn't mean harmless. It means the benefits outweigh the risks. An FDA Guide to Dietary SupplementsAcupuncture is one CAM treatment that seems to be moving into the mainstream.
Acupuncture Entering the MainstreamIn 1997 a 12-member panel in various mainstream medical disciplines examined the art of acupuncture and found the following. I had also showed earlier that Johns Hopkins found acupuncture useful.Politics and money. It takes time.

Aside from the last quote, none of your quotes come from the link I provided.I was addressing a CAM approach that seems to be moving into the mainstream. I wasn't addressing the effectiveness of acupuncture.

quote:

---

And unlike you, PD, I don't think further studies will reveal acupuncture to have a physical mechanism.

---

Again you're assuming a position I haven't claimed.Since acupuncture is not something that I have had the need to research; I have no response to the studies you provided with no links.

From what I read of the article "Acupuncture: Theory, Efficacy, and Practice", I don't see that it gives the idea that acupuncture isn't moving into the mainstream. Quite the contrary. Conclusion The fact that hospitals are offering acupuncture and insurance will cover it in some states shows that it indeed seems to be creeping into the mainstream. Whether it merges completely, only time will tell. Massachusetts General Hospital Pain Center
Johns Hopkins Medicine
Wisconsin, Massachusetts Hospitals Offer AcupunctureCalifornia Adds Acupuncture to Workers' Comp Treatment Guidelines

What we have so far.We are not to put any stock in the testimonies of others. Those aren't proof and they can cover both sides of the issue.We are to stick with medical doctors who have gone through rigorous training in all the science based medicine backed by double-blind studies and the FDA stamp of approval.We are not to turn to CAM practitioners because they have not had the above mentioned training.We also are not to listen to MD's who have gone through the above training, but chose to prescribe or are trained in CAM treatments because by doing so they apparently have had a brain fart and forgotten all that wonderful training.We are to look at studies, but studies also cover both sides of the issue.We are to check our MD's credentials, but again even a Harvard graduate who leans towards the natural loses credibility.Even the use of CAM in a premier medical institution such as Johns Hopkins adds no credibility.If what our mainstream MD prescribes doesn't work we should look for another mainstream MD,If our ND prescribes a natural solution and it works, it was probably just our imagination and we wasted our money. Even though we would have also wasted money on the mainstream treatments that didn't work.So in the trenches we are left with going with where our comfort lies and what works for us individually.
We weigh the risks based on our knowledge, experience, and sometimes gut feelings.It may not be scientific, but we don't always have that luxury and from what we have viewed in these two threads; the science doesn't always give a concrete answer.In reality, it comes down to feeling better; not winning a point.

As you said in Message 103: And vice versa. Dueling studies don't give us a concrete answer. The average person can only take the information, good and bad, gleaned from studies that seem to fit their need to make their decision.

quote:

---

CAM is not "being used" at Johns Hopkins.

---

And yet the link I provided in Message 110 would lead the average person to see otherwise. It is an option available to their patients. Yes, they are researching CAM, but it also seems to be available to cancer patients who aren't part of a study. Can we trust the results of the studies done by these premier hospitals? The average person is lead to believe they can. The dilemma for the average person in this debate is that people who are supposed to have the knowledge don't always agree. History has shown us that this is not unusual.So when we are told or it is implied that medical doctors or scientists who go against the mainstream have just gone stupid (or something to that effect), our trust in those who are supposed to have the knowledge becomes shaky. Then we are left to our own devices. That's why we turn to personal testimony. We do realize that what works for one person doesn't necessarily work or work the same for another. Personal testimony, especially from someone we trust, is closer to home.So while it isn't a perfect method, we take what we glean from dueling studies, "experts", and personal testimony tempered with our own individual knowledge and experiences.Unfortunately, this debate hasn't shown me a better method for the average person.Studies can help to see through selling techniques, but studies don't always address the naturopathic ideas, which deal with giving the body what it needs to heal itself.

As I said before I'm not arguing the effectiveness of acupuncture. Message 100

quote:

---

I won't include a list of the relevant studies (I know how much you hate those!).

---

You've missed that point also. It isn't the studies we dislike, it is the lack of links to the studies and lack of explanation as to how the study supports your position.

quote:

---

In the past 2 weeks, each of these "red flags" has popped up in this thread.

---

As I said: Studies can help to see through selling techniques...

quote:

---

Naturopathy is bullshit.

---

Yea, that helps. I'm not sure why you are adverse to the idea of giving the body what it needs to heal itself. I'm talking about the concept not the quacks or advertising.No one has really showed that the concept is bad. Again, not talking about those trying to sell.