Holistic Doctors, and medicine

I didn't even think to look up the man's license!Excellent work.POTM time!

Partial credit must go to Dr. Barrett's own website, since he links to his information in the process of defending himself from spurious accusations.Read more about them here.Thanks, though!

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.

quote:

---

It doesn't have to be an all or nothing venture.

---

Speaking for myself, I have never claimed that it is.Mainly, I have always advocated for any and all treatments, procedures, drugs (herbal or otherwise), supplements, therapies, etc. be tested for safety and efficacy using the very best methodology possible before businesses are permitted to profit from their sale.That methodology is the scientific method. Specifically, the double blind randomized test. There is literally no other way to really, truly know if something works and how safe it is.I have also advocated for people to reject pseudoscience and nonsense, which is virtually synonymous with CAM.

quote:

---

I feel it would be a sad day for humans if we have to rely on only one method for our health.

---

You mean, it would be sad to rely only on the kind that is supported by scientific evidence?Why would that be sad?I'd call it a great triumph of rationality and reason, and a rightful rejection of wishful and magical thinking.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

Why, of course.We can even patent life forms!A patent on a meningitis bacteria.A patent on a coal purifying bacteria. I have a tube of Retinol right now! Here's one patent holder. You mean besides Retinol?A quick pubmed search gets this:Vitamin C improves endothelial dysfunction of epicardial coronary arteries in hypertensive patients, Circulation 1999 Mar 9;99(9):1273-4.And here's the patent. Lookee! It's Pauling!Had I more time to do research, I bet I could find both the cites and the patents for each vitamin.btw.These vitamins are synthetic only in that they are manufactured. Chemically, structurally, and functionally they are identical to the natural versions.

quote:

---

If allopathic is unable to fix something, why is it bad if naturopathic or homeopathic work?

---

Demonstrate that naturopathy and homeopathy works for X malady, through randomized, double-blind testing, and all is well.If you can't, then why do you think it should be considered? Furthermore, why do you think it should be legal for anyone to prescribe it?

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?

If you find it in a natural source, or make it in a lab, vitamin A looks like this. Are you suggesting there might exist more than one way to make a Vitamin A molecule?

I think we have to answer the "synthetic" question to your satisfaction before we can move on to who is, or is not, a member of BigPharma.Water is H20. One can make water (by passing electricity thru a hydrogen and oxygen mixture) or one can collect it from a natural source. Water is structurally, functionally, and chemically the same in both instances.This is chemistry 101.Do you really need me to explain chemistry to you?As Mod pointed out, there's only one structure that is vitamin A.Re: patents.Go to the US Patent Office website. Type "bacteria" in its search engine.You will find that not only have bacteria been patented, but entire cultivars (soybeans, for example) have been patented.Here's the link. patft » Page 1 of 1 We "develop" prokaryotes and eukaryotes all the time.Are you suggesting that a pitbull is "synthetic" somehow because it was "developed" by humans?

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:

quote:

---

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

---

Modulous did exactly that in the very message you replied to, PD.That's why he asked if you knew of another way to make a vitamin A molecule.Let me put it this way.If we had two electron microscope pictures in front of us, and one of them was of vitamin A synthesized in a lab, and the other one was of vitamin A extracted from a broccoli plant, nobody would be able to tell the difference.The reason is that there is no difference. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

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.

One of the saddest recent developments in the health supplement area is the big way in which large pharmaceutical companies have jumped in to take advantage of this easy profit source. Instead of spending years on research and development, then more years on testing and approval in the FDA regulatory maze, then much money on marketing to doctors because the drugs have to be prescribed before they can be purchased, they can instead quickly and cheaply bring health supplements to market and make money right away. This falls into the "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" category.Regarding alternative medicine, it's not really possible to convince away a true believer. All human endeavor is fraught with error, and those inclined toward condemning traditional medicine will have no problem finding ammunition to arm their distrust. Negative data is easy to find because the industry is so regulated, while alternative medicine is largely unregulated and unmonitored by any central agency. It all comes down to whether you trust published research of peer reviewed experiments and medical trials (and the channels through which the results are disseminated to the public) or anecdote. No one with a good understanding of the difference would choose the latter.Alternative medicine did not invent pasteurization or conquer diseases like smallpox, TB and polio. It did not develop the germ theory of disease. It did not develop rigorous protocols for testing its medicines and procedures. These are achievements of traditional medicine developed over time by rigorous studies of the real world. The absence of both verified achievements and rigorous procedures really tells you all you need to know about alternative medicine.Less formally, let me add that I just don't get why people fall for this stuff. Using toxins as an example, the ads run something like this: "Feeling tired and run down? Well that's because your body builds up toxins taken in from the environment of our industrial world. So buy Al's Anti-toxin Bars and get your old energy back! Just look at all these testimonials from people who have tried Al's Anti-toxin Bars and are feeling better than they have in years!"There's no medical evidence of "toxins" building up in a normal person's body. Just ask any of these flim-flam men the chemical formula for some of these toxins. They can't tell you (unless they lie or misrepresent), because they don't exist. Then ask them for the peer-reviewed double-blind research studies that measured the amount of the "toxins" in the blood both before and after the treatment. They can't show them to you, because they don't exist, either.Let me say something else that has probably already been said in this thread. In most cases, alternative medicine is harmless. Most of it won't hurt you, and since many human ailments go away by themselves it will often seem to work. But the worst case scenario is when someone with a serious or even deadly disease or condition seeks alternative medicine, wasting valuable time before seeking help from traditional medicine. Sometimes the delay is deadly.--Percy

Patent 1:
SoybeanPatent 2:
BacteriaNot according to the Supreme Court. And then there's this:http://www.i-sis.org.uk/crpohlf.php No mice, just prokaryotes and plants. Yes.Structurally = atoms in the molecule are arranged in the same shape
Functionally = molecule acts the same in biological processes
Chemically = molecule acts the same in chemical reactions Pure Appl.Chem., Vol.74, No.10, pp.1957-1985, 2002.
NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC SUBSTANCES RELATED TO HUMAN HEALTH If the molecular structure is the same (as it is with vitamin C, vitamin A, vitamin E, etc.), it is the same substance.This is a technical report that is 30 pages long. It's a free .pdf if you are interested.From that same report: Big AlternaPharma!Edited by molbiogirl, : spEdited by molbiogirl, : html added

I did. And the drug that my doctor gave me was subject to all these processes. Yes, let's put our faith in the clinical trials that say this drug is largely effective and harmless. My doctor certainly thought so. He wasn't the only doctor to think this either. That drug ended up nearly destroying my life. It is a year and a half since I stopped taking it and I am still experiencing many of the symptoms I had initially upon discontinuation, though with the help of my ND and her diet and supplement regime, they are gradually lessening. My ND works with thousands of others who took my drug or a similar one, and who have experienced symptoms similar to mine. They go to her to help fix the damage that allopathic medicine wrought on them. I could share some horror stories about what these people have been through. My own GP doesn't believe me when I tell him about my symptoms because "this cannot be." Unfortunately it often takes an experience like mine in order to have one's eyes opened. Before that, I was like you Percy -- went to my doc, got medicine when I was ill, never saw any reason to question the trust I placed in the "tried-and-tested" mainstream medical system.I will reply in more detail to Nator's and Molbiogirl's posts to me a little later. I've spent a lot of time checking their links and looking up my own. My ND, however, asked me why I am actually doing this. She considers it to be a waste of energy, when I could be giving this info to people who are actually open to it and want to use it. I see no evidence here that the skeptics have any interest in actually educating themselves about the topics at hand. There is much mouse-clicking and link-making but it's obvious to me that the links are often not thoroughly investigated. Also, I have a book by Linus Pauling called How to Live Longer and Feel Better. I'm finding it a little irritating that I can give info straight from this source but am dealing with people who want to dismiss him out of hand using links from a second party like Stephen Barrett. If you want to let Mr. Barrett do your thinking for you that is your choice, but don't consider yourself to be getting an unbiased or accurate picture of anything from him. If it reassures you that his brand of science and medicine are correct and chime nicely with your views, then indeed it's probably a waste of energy for me to try to convince anyone otherwise. I was never under any illusions that that might be the case here anyway. What are we actually doing by discussing this, just trying to score points off each other?The whole philosophy behind Quackwatch and its sources is wrong, from a naturopathic point of view. I asked if anyone knows how allopathic medicine cures anything, apart from with antibiotics. Yes docs can fix a broken leg or do an organ transplant. I have no problem with seeing them for that. However, I have no interest in using medications to alleviate symptoms when I can instead get at the root causes of those symptoms, which is often achieved by knowledgeable use of diet and supplements.Naturopathy believes that the body can usually heal itself, given the right materials. A poor environment, toxins outside and inside the body, and poor nutrition can all be catalysts for disease. Allopathic medicine overwhelmingly treats the symptoms rather than their causes. Case in point, various kinds of mental illness. Usually you get a drug for these from your doc. No one should be pretending that these drugs actually cure anything. Naturopathy sees mental illness as a symptom of an underlying problem. I have first-hand experience of seeing quite a number of people come off psychotropic drugs, and stay off them for years, using naturopathic methods. Sometimes their own docs had them drugged up on 10 or more meds at a time initially. That was their idea of "treatment."It is up to you whether you'd like to learn more about this, or whether you dismiss it as meaningless anecdotal evidence. I sincerely hope that you or your loved ones will not have to suffer severe illness before you consider other possibilities outside of conventional medicine. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.