Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Safety and Effectiveness of Herbs and Pharmaceuticals
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 26 of 209 (447024)
01-07-2008 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Taqless
01-07-2008 11:34 AM


Anecdotal "evidence"
Percy points out that 5000 years of Ephedra use in China seemed alright, so what happened here?
If by "seemed alright" you mean "sufficient data by which one can judge safety/effectiveness", I think you are taking Percy's post out of context.
From Percy's Message 10.
But while many herbs have a long history of use, what they don't have is any history of systematic data gathering in clinical settings. Anecdotal data gathering is almost always absent even the basics of such measures as blood pressure, temperature, blood analysis and weight tracking, just to mention a few. And since there's no data gathering, there's also no data analysis.
But let's run with it.
Centuries of use = safe/effective.
How many centuries count? 1? 3? 50?
After all, we have 2 centuries worth of "evidence" that homeopathy works.
We have a 1/2 century worth of "evidence" that Bigfoot exists.
We have 20 centuries worth of "evidence" that chicken soup is good for a cold (and, according to the Torah, leprosy).
We have at least 20 centuries of "evidence" that ghosts exist.
So. What's the cutoff point?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Taqless, posted 01-07-2008 11:34 AM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Taqless, posted 01-07-2008 9:46 PM molbiogirl has replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 29 of 209 (447058)
01-07-2008 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Taqless
01-07-2008 9:46 PM


Re: Anecdotal "evidence"
Way to miss the point, Tagless! Congrats.
When used for the condition indicated by the centuries of use, yes.
So. Chicken soup for leprosy, then? This is a treatment that has been advocated for nigh on 20 centuries.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Taqless, posted 01-07-2008 9:46 PM Taqless has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Taqless, posted 01-08-2008 5:49 PM molbiogirl has not replied

  
molbiogirl
Member (Idle past 2641 days)
Posts: 1909
From: MO
Joined: 06-06-2007


Message 31 of 209 (447082)
01-08-2008 12:46 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Granny Magda
01-07-2008 10:49 PM


Re: Abuse
The caveat is that none of this means that any given tradition is correct about their herbal medicines. They could be wrong, just like people who believe that sex with a virgin will cure AIDS.
Granny, I gotta say. Badda bing badda boom.
Exactly.
Traditions (aka "anecdotal evidence") are suspect. And I gotta hand it to you. You have chosen the perfect analogy.
Does anyone really think that in ten years time (hell, in 50 years time -- it's been a good 30 years since it was recognized by Western medicine) that traditional African "remedies" will prescribe anything different?
Is it likely that any "traditional medicine" has any better "evidence"?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Granny Magda, posted 01-07-2008 10:49 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024