Sequel Thread To Holistic Doctors, and medicine

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.

I'm sorry about the ambiguity of the post about Zyprexa Percy. Yes it's been shown to cause diabetes, and yes it is a neuroleptic. It shouldn't be prescribed for depression, though it commonly happens.Did you read the info I gave from Peter Breggin's book about TD and its variations? And the risks of developing it on these meds? The people whom you say seem to have been helped by the Zyprexa stand a significant chance of developing serious problems if they stay on the drug, or indeed any neuroleptic.I've been attempting to explain here how clinical trials that claim to show that ADS and neuroleptics help people, can be flawed. That side effects can be significant and damaging, sometimes permanently so. That there are healthier alternatives. I would be interested to hear your opinion of the Welcome To Orthomolecular.org site, and Dr. Hoffer's work in particular. He worked with Linus Pauling, and he had had success with treating schizophrenia using niacin and vitamin C. Yet, you still say that clinical trials are the most reliable and most trustworthy sources of medical knowledge.I am not knocking the whole of the medical profession. Many doctors do help people. My ND is one. And some drugs help people and save lives. If I needed surgery I would go have it. But I think there is a fundamental flaw with the whole diagnose-and-prescribe philosophy where drugs are concerned. Too many drugs are prescribed for preventable illnesses and diseases. People are taking medications for mental illness in unprecedented numbers and yet depression is still a major problem; if the drugs were so helpful, then why is that -- shouldn't it be LESS of a problem than it was in the past?Clinical trials simply complement the diagnose-and-prescribe philosophy. So yes, I am seriously denigrating that, you are right. I think it is nothing short of criminal to prescribe a drug that can cause TD. It's horrific. I've met people who suffer this kind of permanent damage and my heart goes out to them. Mentally ill people are amongst the most vulnerable in society. If they are put in an institution they have little choice about being put on these drugs, and usually it is several at once. I don't care whether they are statistically significant or not. They are significant as human beings who deserve humane and dignified treatments, not brain-damaging drugs.The only way I can see for this to change is if more and more people take the pharmaceuticals to court and sue them. It's very difficult to do though, and most cases end up being settled out of court, keeping the pharaceuticals' legal records cleaner than they perhaps should be. The challenges aren't going to come from the people who do clinical trials on the meds though. They are going to come from people strengthening the growing movement of naturopathy, as more and more of them come to realise that allopathic medicine and its prestigious studies and journals don't always have the answers that many of us were raised to think that they do.

PurpleDawn you said: First I'd like to say that I'm sorry about the troubles that your family, and Hoot Mon's, have experienced. People join my ND's list all the time who report similar experiences and it makes my blood boil. Not many people want to listen, have you picked that up? They need to start listening. There's suffering being caused.In reference to your above statement, the idea of ADs remedying a chemical imbalance is a marketing ploy. No one has ever proved that there is a chemical imbalance involved in mental illness, or that these drugs selectively treat it. By boosting levels of serotonin throughout the body you can cause a serotonin high, but this is not somehow rectifying an imbalance. The brain actually reacts to this by reducing the number of serotonin receptors, in an attempt to restore balance. This is one reason why the drugs can cause withdrawal. It takes time for the brain to adjust every time its chemistry is disrupted.In Dr. Healy's book, the Anti-Depressant Era, he documents how time and time again drugs were developed for a different purpose and an unexpected side effect was that they had an antipsychotic or antidepressant effect in some people. Prozac was developed by accident. Once Lilly realised that they had a 5-HT reuptake inhibitor on their hands, they had meetings to decide how they would market it. Initially they decided to market it as an antihypertensive -- at that time, that market was bigger and more lucrative than the antidepressant market. It was only when a number of other drugs appeared on the market as SSRI antidepressants, that Lilly decided to get in on it too. In recent years, when the original patent for Prozac expired, they again gave the drug a re-make by marketing it as Sarafem, a "treatment" for PMDD.Interesting how these supposedly selective drugs metamorphose, with the clinical trials data always keeping step.There is just no chemical imbalance. The data which people claim support it do not stand up to careful scrutiny. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

I can't.By your definition, simply removing a vitamin from its source -- not changing it in anyway, just removing it -- constitutes an "unnatural" vitamin.Science 17 February 2006:
Vol. 311. no. 5763, pp. 946 - 947
What Good Is a Patent? Supreme Court May Suggest an Answer Science 1 December 2006:
Vol. 314. no. 5804, pp. 1395 - 1396
When Patents Threaten Science In summary, Science feels (and I agree) that simply removing (isolating/purifying) a compound = that compound is "found in nature"/"natural". Science feels (and I agree) that in order to qualify as "unnatural" the compound itself has to be changed -- not just removed.The scientific community and the USPTO disagree.Although, to be fair, BigPharma is arguing your side of the argument so that they will be able to patent naturally occurring compounds.It is in their financial interest to do so.The USPTO agrees with BigPharma. For now.I, like most in the scientific community, feel that a compound (like vitamin C) found in nature -- one that is ONLY isolated/purified -- constitutes a "natural" compound.ABEYou 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.When I pointed out that "natural" and "manmade" vitamins are the same structurally, chemically, and functionally, you dropped that line of reasoning and moved on to "Well, the USPTO says isolated = not natural."So.Are you NOW suggesting that there are no "natural" vitamin pills?Edited by molbiogirl, : No reason given.

Hi LL,The focus of the discussion really can't move on to your claims until it is established that they have a valid scientific foundation. For example, you begin with this: Maybe Zyprexa shouldn't be prescribed for depression, I don't know. The relevant question is why you think you know. Is the data you used to reach your conclusions scientific or anecdotal? But we've already been over this ground. No human endeavor is without flaws. By what strange beast of logic do you conclude that the way to address flaws in current methods is to return to old methods that are even more flawed? And you know this how? Through anecdote? By a self-selected group? Who are performing self-reporting? Of their subjective conclusions about their condition and its causes? And you know this how? (repeat the rest of my previous paragraph)You see, the most important point in this thread isn't whether modern medicines are over-prescribed and do harm, not that that isn't important. But what's far more important is that we're using clinical trials to establish the efficacy and other effects of drugs, and we're not using methods from the stone age of medicine like anecdote. Whatever problems modern medicines might have, they'd be far worse if they were assessed via anecdote rather than clinical studies.In other words, your approach is wholly unscientific and your conclusions are therefore seriously in question.--Percy

And taking non-prescription drugs naively and on the advice of a naturopath or their lapdogs, the commercial naturopaths, is like walking into the forest to speak to wise woman who heard that beetle wings are an effective cure for TB.If you think the system is corrupt - making a different system with less checks and balances is not the solution to remove corruption. After all - naturos get to sell their products without needing to spend lots of money and time testing their product or conducting trials - they have less overheads so they get more profit. Surely then, corruption and confirmation bias is more likely - not less?

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.

Zyprexa is indicated for the treatment of schizophrenia and acute mixed or manic episodes associated with bipolar disorder. http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/olanzapine_ids.htm Oh, and the "efficacy" was established in 6-week trials.This means that anyone prescribing this drug for depression is doing it off-label. I have serious concerns about off-label prescribing and its ramifications. A question for you: if the clinical trials are so important, then why are doctors allowed to prescribe virtually any drug for any reason they think fit, whether or not that use for that drug has been supported by a clinical trial? Specifically what old methods? I take it you are not referring to the prescription of opium or cocaine, which were some old methods. Or to trepanning, or bleeding. I'm not referring to them either. And how are the methods you are referring to flawed, exactly? I refer you to the text I lifted from Breggin's book in Message 8 He gives citations for his claims. I've also read about this in various other places and yes I've met people who have suffered from TD and akathisia. They are known side effects of neuroleptics. I've asked you a number of times if you would be kind enough to check out Dr. Hoffer's work at Orthomolecular.org. He has successfully treated schizophrenia with niacin and vitamin C. Here is a bibliography of his work. You'll have to scroll down the page to Papers and Articles Published to find what you want. http://www.doctoryourself.com/biblio_hoffer.html What are the implications of this statement -- that because I am questioning the validity of clinical drug trials, it means everything I am saying is invalid? I've explained why pharmaceuticals have a vested interest in doing trials on drugs not vitamins, and in publishing certain outcomes from those trials. If billions of dollars are at stake because the trials involve a blockbuster drug, do you seriously think this is not going to be a big motivator for a positive result -- and that any flaws are just due to people being human and making mistakes? I've explained how the drugs can be damaging to many people and that it's likely that adverse effects are severely underreported. I've given nutritional alternatives as possible cures, which if administered properly can prevent and cure the conditions for which these drugs are prescribed. I'm not saying you should put crystals around your house, do some feng shui, or wear a special piece of jewellery. I'm not suggesting you take any herbs. Diet and supplements, that's all, and they will not harm you.If you feel I haven't given enough evidence for you to accept that this is a credble alternative, that's fine. I'm not going to sit around and wait for clinical trials that may never come from an establishment that is driven by the diagnose-and-prescribe philosophy, when what is prescribed is almost always drugs and almost never a good diet and supplement regime.The sailors didn't wait for clinical trials before eating the lemons and limes that prevented them from dying of scurvy, though this idea took much longer to gain acceptance in mainstream medicine.

The USPTO brings "natural" and "not natural" into the conversation. You cited the passage. Remember? You have to take into consideration 2 things:1. USPTO requires that a NATURAL compound be isolated (aka purified aka extracted) so that it can be patented. 2. USPTO defines a compound (a gene, a piece of DNA, a vitamin) that has been isolated/purified as "not naturally occurring". USPTO (and BigPharma) are trying to have their cake and eat it too.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.The scientific community, on the other hand, would like the USPTO (and BigPharma) to STOP defining isolated/purified naturally occurring compounds (genes, DNA, vitamins) as patentable. It makes research difficult and lawsuits inevitable.The prior cites from Science make that abundantly clear. Well, no.I said that by extracting a vitamin from its source, that vitamin is not changed.I said that extracted vitamins have been patented. The legal loophole that USPTO exploits is very simple:THEY DEFINE EXTRACTED COMPOUNDS AS "NOT OCCURRING IN NATURE".

Many of the alternative practitioners are very interested in the reports from clinical studies. For example Dr Julian Whitaker who has the largest alternative health care facility in the nation refers continually to these studies in his practice and in his radio programs with Deborah Ray.How can you debunk alternative methodology as you seem to be doing in this topic when you're not interested in the clinical studies? Using Health Insurance Wellness Programs

...and like chewing on willow bark because some natives say it will ease your aches and pains? I agree with you entirely. I'm likewise suspicious of holistic medicine. But good public education is the best check and balance. I want to see America's children become well-enough educated to understand the difference between good medicine and bad. And I want them to know that some aspects of capitalism can be downright unhealthy for them. We're in an historical drug crisis right now, and authorities think it's about marijuana. No, it's really about legal drugs and their derivatives that get out on the street. I also want the kids to learn that most supplements do almost nothing to support good health, but a few do. Cod liver oil is as good as anything else. Kids need to understand which ones are good, useless, dangerous without the profit motive getting in the way. And they need to learn that the worst drug of all is Kool-Aid.It's the Kool-Aid drinking that really bothers me”the kind that promises a good bankroll, a good sex life, and a good war. I wish young people could see that more clearly, but it'll take a draft to do it. And I wish the schools would address the whole picture of drugs properly and without the use of those snipy DARE programs, but capitalism filters out the kind of education they need.”HM

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.

Vitamin D
United States Patent 4388242Vitamin E
United States Patent 5235073Vitamin A
United States Patent 4254100Vitamin B 12
United States Patent 6972188Vitamin B 6
United States Patent 6984510Vitamin B 2
United States Patent 6376222Vitamin B 1
United States Patent 20060127993I could go on, but I think it's patently (hah!) obvious that I'm right.Oh. By the way.Remember this? We can patent natural vitamins. Just as I said.You argued that they had to be synthetic.Which isn't true. Oh ho! You brought up natural!Extraction IS NOT synthesis.Extraction DOES NOT change the compound.

quote:

---

I kind of got the impression that my writing is a logical mess and that I'm disseminating a lot of misinformation. Unfortunately some of my sources have not been faultless and I have to admit that this is the case. But I'm fine with being made to sharpen up, I'm going to try to work on that.

---

This attitude is very rare here at EvC, I can assure you. I am sure I speak for many of us here when I say that you are to be admired for maintaining it.Way, way back in the day, when I first started participating here, I got slapped around a bit, too. If "sharpening up" is what you'd like to do with your debate skills, this place will definitely help you with that!I will also second Rat's comment that you write beautifully.

quote:

---

No one has ever proved that there is a chemical imbalance involved in mental illness

---

Untrue.For example, there is tons of evidence to suggest that schizophrenia involves chemical imbalances in the brain.What we don't know yet is the cause of most chemical imbalances. There are indications that there are genetic causes for atypical brain chemistry, too.