Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine

BigPharma has BigReasons to extensively test ANY drug that shows promise.Ginko biloba is a case in point.There have been 139 studies published in 2007.Don't you get it? There's an enormous financial incentive to test!Hell's bells, there's a journal called Natural Product Reports.Natural products to drugs: natural product derived compounds in clinical trials, Nat. Prod. Rep., 2005, 22, 162-195.A partial list of naturally derived drugs:1998 orlistat (Xenical®)
1998 cefoselis (Wincef®)
1999 dalfopristin and quinupristin (Synercid®)
1999 valrubicin (Valstar®)
1999 colforsin daropate (Adele, Adehl®)
2000 arteether (Artemotil®)
2001 ertapenem (Invanz)
2001 caspofungin (Cancidas®)
2001 telithromycin (Ketek®)
2001 pimecrolimus (Elidel®)
2002 galantamine (Reminyl®)
2002 micafungin (Funguard®)
2002 amrubicin hydrochloride (Calsed®)
2002 biapenem (Omegacin®)
2002 nitisinone (Orfadin®)
2003 miglustat (Zavesca®)
2003 mycophenolate sodium (Myfortic®)
2003 rosuvastatin (Crestor®)
2003 pitavastatin (Livalo®)
2003 daptomycin (Cubicin)
2004 everolimusd (Certican)The latest issue of Natural Product Reports is "Vitamins and Cofactors".It's only when extensive testing reveals a favorite "treatment" (e.g. megadose vitamin C) to be ineffective that you and your buddies get your panties in a bunch.

You're right, naturopathy is about treating root causes. The root cause of the adrenal dysfunction is the damage that the antidepressant withdrawal did. My ND is a neurologist who has specialized for over 20 years in helping people to stop their psychotropic meds, and stay off them. Unfortunately I didn't find her until I'd already done a very quick 2-week taper. There was no going back, the harm was already done. I've been helping my body to slowly rebuild and heal by giving it optimal nutrition through diet and supplements, which is my ND's protocol. And slowly, the healing is happening. At first I couldn't even watch TV, read more than a few pages in a book, or use the computer without becoming a jittery, crying mess. It was awful because there wasn't a lot I could do to feed my brain, with those stimuli taken away. Now I'm OK with all of those things, but a full day at work is still and enormous challenge. So is a hot day of, say, more than 75 degrees. I get sick if I don't sit in an air conditioned room.Healing from this kind of damage is a slow process. That's why I'm taking the relora and the other herbs, so that I can cope in the meantime. BTW the ginkgo and the ashwagandha also do a little bit toward countering the persistent sexual dysfunction. The ginkgo helped with that almost 100% when I was on the drug, but it suddenly became less efficaceous when I withdrew the med. It still helps noticeably though. I wonder if anyone has done a clinical trial on it as an aphrodisiac LOL.

Lindalou, you really need to be more careful.BMJ did not retract the story of Dominik Feld's cancer (and his subsequent death).They retracted the story that Dr. Rath was sued for Dominik's death.And Dr. Rath is a loon for many reasons, chief among them his AIDS denial.Rath took out a full-page ad in the New York Times in which he refers to pharmaceutical firms as "the pharmaceutical drug cartel" and charged that this cartel promotes antiretroviral drugs "to maintain their global market with patented AIDS drugs." Despite the evidence that these drugs are effective, he claims that pharmaceutical firms know not only that they are ineffective but also that they are aimed at increasing the spread of AIDS.

If those studies only used, say, a few hundred milligrams of vitamin C, then people have every right to object that the studies were flawed.You are no doubt correct about pharmaceuticals wanting to test natural substances for use in their drugs. The question there would be who decides that a particular substance shows promise, and how much money they think might be made out of it. Also, as I'm sure you're aware, there can be a big difference between the natural form of the substance and the form which appears in the prescription medication.Would you kindly tell me what the "vitamins and cofactors" story is about? I don't suppose there is a link to it, or a similar story?

It looks to me like Dr. Rath did some good work in the past. Maybe there's a screw loose somewhere now, I don't know. I'll ask on my ND's list and see what people there know about him.

Au contraire.Dr. Pauling's assertions spurred further research. Anyone can publish a journal, Lindalou.Subtle Energies & Energy Medicine is a "journal" fer chrissake.Domain Names, Web Hosting and Online Marketing Services | Network Solutions Um. Yeah. Right.

It's not a "story". The entire September 2007 issue is dedicated to vitamins and cofactors.And, as I pointed out earlier, since you haven't access to a University library, you would have to pay to read the journal.Should you wish to do so, here is the link:Natural Product Reports journal

Hi LindaLou,I'm responding to both Message 181 and Message 182 in this single message. I think you're forgetting that I've only been making one point, that scientific methodologies are far superior to anecdote for figuring things out. I hope that's not an an "idea" you think is wrong. I'm not trying to change your "ideas" but rather your habit of basing your opinions on anecdote.Oftentimes when you attempt to echo back what people are telling you it is inaccurate, sometimes hightly inaccurate. One reason it appears to you that you and I are going round and round and getting nowhere is that I often have to repeat what I just said, because it's apparent you thought I was saying something else. The repetitiousness of this is obvious to everyone, but I don't see that I have any choice but to reexplain when you once again fail to comprehend what I just said. We don't need to be told once again that you believe big phara is evil and mainstream doctors are prescription crazy. We already know what you believe. And we don't need to be told once again that you're not going to be persuaded away from your current regimen, because no one's trying to do that, either. I'm not asking for agreement, just comprehension.What I'd like to see is something like, "What I understand you to be saying is..." followed by a summary of what I actually said. Too many times you just misinterpret someone's response to you so as to justify repeating the same anecdotally based positions, and you do this over and over again. Though we don't agree with your positions, that's not what's at issue here. What's at issue is the quality of the evidence you used to reach these positions.So once again, I'm not saying you're wrong, though of course I think you are. And since you replied like this in your next message to something very similar that I said: I feel I have to point out that this is not a joke. I'm being honest with you about what I believe. I'm not denying that I think you have extreme views. I'm not denying that I think you're wrong. That's just being honest. But those aren't the points I'm making.The point I'm making, and that you seem to keep missing, is that your conclusions are supported by the worst kind of data available. I'm trying to explain to you that you've adopted an incredibly poor method for reliably figuring things out.So please stop saying things like, "You're not going to convince me to stop taking my herbs because I wouldn't be able to function," because no one here is trying to tell you to stop doing what seems to be working for you. And stop saying things like this: Because unless you can support it with reliable evidence, it shouldn't be said. The evidence we have tells us that us that as a nation (and I assume the same is true for Europe) we are healthier than ever before. Mortality rates across a host of diseases and conditions continue to drop. Life spans continue to lengthen. So unless you can find reliable evidence that modern medicine is worsening rather than improving health, you haven't got a leg to stand on. You're not only not reading my posts very carefully, you're not reading you're own, either? This is from your Message 167: As I said when I first quoted this, you're very clearly saying that you've decided to ignore the best evidence until it tells you what you want to hear. Once again I point you to the fact that the plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not reliable evidence. Collecting many subjective experiences is not the way to compensate for one subjective experience. Only objective data gathering can effectively lead to reliable conclusions.This is why I pointed you to the silicon breast implant case. Here, let me Google it for you...This link provides an objective chronology of events showing how people using the same kind of data that you do, anecdotal, were able to use the court system to force Dow Corning into bankruptcy and force payments to women for damages that silicon breast implants never caused. While current evidence supports the safety of silicon breast implants, there are groups that have geared up to fight their reintroduction, but again based upon anecdotal data.There's another example of the same thing that is now happening in the United States and Europe. Some parents are refusing to have their children inoculated against the standard diseases because of the potential danger of harmful reactions to the vaccines. This behavior has caused several unnecessary outbreaks, something that had been unheard of in the western world for a few decades. See Events following reductions in vaccination at Wikipedia for a few details.The anti-vaccination crowd is using the same kind of data and analysis you are: anecdotal.--Percy

I'd like to add that it's the anecdotal "links" between autism and vaccinations that have caused the majority of the harm.Jenny McCarthy is on the cover of September's People magazine promoting this BS.She wrote a book too. Louder Than Words: A Mother's Journey in Healing Autism.Edited by molbiogirl, : sp

Right Percy, I'm going to try to look at your post as a lesson in debating here at CvE. That's what you intended it to be, yes?A few points here then. Not everything I've said has been anecdotal. Once I understood the kind of evidence people here were wanting, I started to look up clinical trial data. I've presented it here for vitamins and herbs. I've also explained how some other studies are flawed.The evidence you seem to want is from clinical studies in prestigious peer-reviewed journals. There is little of this for vitamins and herbs, compared to drugs. I've given a number of reasons why this is. I've called into question the whole philosophy of diagnose-and-prescribe, when naturopathy aims to heal the root cause of a problem. Why should I not make those kinds of arguments here? Because as I said, if I strictly limit myself to what you seem to want, there's not much to be said, and this discussion may as well end. If you really are curious, however, about why intelligent people still choose naturopathy despite all the seemingly logical reasons not to, then that's what I'm trying to explain. I see. So what is the best evidence? A lack of evidence? If I decided I wanted to be a hardline skeptic, I would have to say that vitamins and herbs on the whole are better left alone because there isn't enough evidence yet for their efficacy. Is that what you'd like me to say? Have you considered the possibility that they really can be efficacious, but there haven't been enough studies done yet? I'm willing to consider types of evidence here that some others aren't. No doubt that would make me a bad scientist. But as I've said, I think there's good evidence that the system is flawed, and this is the system that everyone presenting highly skeptical arguments here is basing them on.I'm trying to work out the exact point you are making with the breast implants story. If you want me to see that a group of people can be wrong about the cause of their illness, then yes I accept that. It isn't going to stop me from at least listening to what groups of people have to say. My own large group has what I consider to be pretty good evidence. Setting aside the whole issue of what actually happened to us on the psych meds, we can all point to the withdrawals we went through. Withdrawal is recognized with psych meds, though in the case of ADs it has been labelled "discontinuation syndrome." It starts when the drug is tapered or withdrawn. The package inserts for these drugs say that tapers can be as short as a couple of weeks, and that symptoms are usually mild and transitory. This is not what we've found upon discontinuation. It's pretty easy to tell because the start is clear-cut. The adrenal and the nervous system oversensitivity, for me, started on day one and have continued ever since to a significant degree. It's been a year and a half.Two of the people on my list successfully sued GlaxoSmithKline for the damage that Paxil did to them. This is not anecdote, it is fact. It took 7 years. It's very difficult to bring this kind of case to court against a pharmaceutical company and win. Several others are involved in ongoing litigation, including one person who suffered brain damage as a result of ECT. Another, who developed severe neuralgia in her feet upon withdrawal of her drug and hasn't been able to walk for two years, is searching for a lawyer who will take her case. She is a former national-class runner.I do honsetly wish someone would take the lot of us and do the most technologically intricate and thorough tests on us. Let them show what really can happen in a person's body when a psych med is withdrawn. For that matter, let them show exactly what really happens in a person's body when the drug is in their system. What do you think my doctor could, or should, do for me? I've had a few blood tests. He shrugs his shoulders and says there's nothing more he can do. Fortunately this does not drive me to despair because I've got my own alternatives.So here it is. You and I choose to look at different kinds of evidence in different ways. I'm clear on how you feel about that. What exactly is the ethos of this forum, may I ask? Is a person expected to aim for a highly skeptical approach in every topic here, is that EvC's gold standard? If a person doesn't, are they considered a time-waster? Or are they indulged simply so that they can eventually be shown the error of their ways? Mind you, maybe the answers are in the name of the forum itself. If it's a scientific place, then it's going to be full of skeptical scientists. In which case, what do you hope to gain by opening a thread like this? If people don't always want to play by your rules, and aim for that highly skeptical ideal, then what?

Dr. Pauling's objection wasn't that the Mayo Clinic studies were "flawed"; it was to the studies' use of oral vitamin C.His objections were taken to heart by other researchers. Other studies were done/are being done.Phase 1 Trial of High-Dose Intravenous Vitamin C Treatment for Patients With Cancer
JAOA ” Vol 107 ” No 6 ” June 2007 ” 212-213 Unfortunately, no evidence has come to light (yet) that supports Dr. Pauling's assertions.In fact, just the opposite.Orthomolecular oncology review: ascorbic acid and cancer 25 years later.
Integr Cancer Ther. 2005 Mar;4(1):32-44. A big difference?How so?Sometimes a compound derived from a natural source is (intentionally) changed for medical purposes, sometimes it isn't. You just won't let go of the Evil Scientist Worldwide Conspiracy®, will you?I am never going to get my ESWC® membership card by spilling the beans like this, but here goes nothing:BigPharma is on the prowl for ANYTHING & EVERYTHING that even remotely smells like $.

Mice, hamsters and in vitro studies? Let's have studies on humans please."Ascorbic acid and gastrointestinal cancer" -- this is a review, not a study. It says that "evidence for ascorbic acid as an inhibitor of carcinogenesis is stronger with regard to gastric cancer and weaker with regard to esophageal and colon/rectal cancer. Insufficient evidence currently exists regarding the oral cavity and the use of ascorbic acid in precancerous conditions such as polyposis and leukoplakia."I don't know which studies this review is based on, can't read any abstracts. Besides, all I see here are some tentative conclusions and a good dose of "we don't know yet." There are plenty of other vitamin C studies with clearly positive outcomes.Want to try again? Go on, give me your most damning evidence that vitamin C is useless and Pauling was completely wrong. Condition: human full text studies only. I can't fairly comment on them if I can't see the full studies.By the way, if you'd done me the service of at least reading the post in which I added some information from Pauling's book, you would have seen that there were more flaws in the Mayo Clinic studies than just the way vitamin C was administered. Then why is it so difficult to believe that they might want to influence the outcome of studies involving blockbuster drugs that stand to earn them billions of $$$, or that they might want to suppress negative clinical trial results or adverse events if those might prevent the drugs from receiving FDA approval? I don't think this is paranoid or even cynical. It's how the world works.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

In order to rebut your absurd claims, I need to reference the appropriate literature.It isn't my fault that you haven't access to the literature, Lindalou. I read it the first time, Lindalou.The Mayo Clinic studies were not "flawed".A "flawed" study is one that is biased. I posted a list of the most common sources of bias, remember?In case you don't: Using this as a guideline, one can see that Dr. Cameron's and Dr. Pauling's original paper was biased. (A paper that you have yet to read, right, Lindalou?) This is irrelevant to the question of whether or not BigPharma chases down "natural" drugs.---A couple of questions.How do you suppose BigPharma suppresses negative clinical trials?Clinical trials are carried out by independent researchers.How do you suppose they influence the outcome of studies?The studies are done by independent researchers.You might have an argument re: the clinical trials/studies they do themselves, but you are suggesting that BigPharma has the ability to control tens of thousands of researchers worldwide.Worldwide, dear.Really, now.

quote:

---

Scare me some more with horror scenarios about herbs why don't you.

---

The point is, you can't answer those questions, can you?It is much more likely that the herbs are safe, simply because most herbs are not likely to have much, if any effect other than placebo.But again, we don't really know.Why would you take something that you have nearly zero information about the long term effects, interactions, etc?

quote:

---

Like I said, plenty of FDA-approved drugs have the ability to profoundly harm people but they are prescribed nevertheless.

---

Yes, but we know what most of those effects are.Why do we know this, and why don't we know this about your herbal drugs?We also know that the drugs that end up being approved have been demonstrated to be more effective than placebo.Why do know this, and why don't we know this about your herbal drugs?Taking ANY drug that has an effect beyond placebo is a cost/benefit ratio, and with tested drugs, we can examine the known short and long term possible negative effects and decide if the possibility that we may experience all or some of them is worth the potential benefits. That's what that detailed, fine printed package insert that comes with your prescription is.There is no "fine print" for most herbal drugs, because the testing hasn't been done.Any drug that is powerful enough to do what you are claiming yours does is also powerful enough to have side effects.Do not confuse the fact that you don't know what the long or short term side effects might be with their likely non-existence.

quote:

---

I've said I agree that herbs should be tested. I listed some clinical trials for you. You can look them up and see what the safety indications were if you want. Personally, taking any of them in pregnancy isn't an issue for me anyway because I would not take any herbs while I'm pregnant. I wouldn't take any risks there whatsoever. Same goes for prescription drugs.

---

It doesn't matter what you, personally, would or wouldn't do, LindaLou.It matters what the herbal drug manufactuers and prescribers do.

quote:

---

I'm not on anybody's "side." And I'm not just giving anecdotes.

---

Oh, come on now. You are clearly in defense mode, and you clearly are on one side.You criticize the medical field for being "symptom oriented", and drug-happy, but then it is revealed that you seem to be very reliant upon several supposedly powerful herbal drugs that you really need just to get you through the day at work.You claim the science-based medical system is broken because it wouldn't dare go against the drug companies' intrests, but when shown a great example where the very same system goes against the drug companies' intrests (becasue the scientific evidence leads that way), you rather incredibly claim that this is evidence that the system is broken!It very much appears that you are likely to construe any result to be evidence that "the system is broken", since you have already decided that it is.

quote:

---

I've cited clinical trials here for vitamins and herbs. Someone has convinced you that these things are mysterious and dangerous.

---

Huh?Where do you get that? Mysterious, yes. We don't know much about most herbs, and the ones we do know about are so underregulated for quality and consistency of potentcy that I wouldn't feel comfortable taking them. Vitamins, I already take.Dangerous? We really don't know about most of them, although there are a number that are poisonous. We also don't know if most of them are effective for what they are prescribed for.Why would I put a substance in my body about which almost nothing is known outside of folk tradition?

quote:

---

Look. If you're telling me that neuroleptics ought to be prescribed despite the fact that they can cause tardive dyskinesia -- because they are FDA approved -- then why on earth are you so horrified that I take a herb for cortisol regulation?

---

1) drug demonstrated to be more effective than placebo, known side effects, regulated for purity and potentcy2) drug that has not been demonstrated to be more effective than placebo, unknown side effects, little regulation for purity and potentcy

So, what exactly, is the damage to your body?