New antiquack blog

[robinson]

Yes, but unfortunately those flat earthers are infiltrating medicine....
There are lots of consumers buying homeopathic remedies who still have no idea what homeopathy is all about, and we need to try to get the message to them.

In regards to "homeopathic", there is a real and serious thing going on, that I was unaware of, until the other day. A friend stopped by the local health food store to get some "homeopathic medicine" for her dog. I told her flat out, homeopathic remedies are worthless. She said she had used it before, and it worked well. So I looked at the bottle, read the label. It wasn't homeopathic at all, it was an herbal formula. It was called "homeopathic", but in reality it was an herbal tincture, and knowing the condition and the herbs involved, it would indeed help the poor wee beast.

A quick look at the data online confirmed this phenomenon. A "homeopathic formula"

http://www.ultimateanimals.co.uk/acatalog/Homeopathic_pet_remedies_wormer.html

Ingredients: Chamomilla, Valeriana, Borax, Cypripedium Pub, Ignatia A, Colch, Verat A in 20% USP alc. in purified water.15ml bottle.

Another one.
http://www.enaturalremedies.co.uk/purecalm_for_anxiety.htm

Melissa Officinalis

Lavandula Augustifolia

Passiflora Incarnata

Somehow herbal remedies are being sold as homeopathic remedies. Obviously animals are immune to the placebo effect, and one thing I know about pet owners, they know when something works on their pet. I did some checking and there is a huge amount of "homeopathic" stuff that is using the label, but is in fact, herbal remedies.

This may be one reason for the growth of "homeopathic" remedies. I don't know how or when "homeopathic" became a selling point, but it looks like a lot of things being marketed as "homeopathic" are in fact herbal remedies, which is a completly different issue.

I'm going to check the "human" remedies and see if this is going on there as well.

 

[vaidya]

Oh, deer!

Perhaps you should sit down for a spell, then go make yourself some nice foxglove tea and a snack of apricot pits and castor beans.

Do enjoy yourself.

another armchair skeptic - like cockroaches out of the woodwork...

btw, do you know how William Withering "discovered" digitalis? he learned about it from a Shropshire herbalist that had been successfully treating "cardiac dropsy" for years, without any knowledge of cardiac glycosides or any "chemicals"

this was the first herb lost to herbalists - once they isolated the glycosides it was taken away by "regulators" who apparently knew more than the very people who introduced it to them!

there is ample evidence of this kind of arrogance and conceit in medicine, and it plays itself out again and again

 

[Chris Haynes]

...A more complete list of poisonous plants is listed here (note that some are used in pharmaceuticals, notably foxglove and yew):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_poisonous_plants

...

As a gardener I know there are more and better lists of poisonous plants out there (when my children were small I concentrated on edible landscaping to make sure it was a safe garden, that has changed now since I have added delphiniums and daffodils). That list includes Autumn Crocus, but I also grow Saffron Crocus that also bloom in the fall and are NOT poisonous. I just forgot where I put poisonous plant websites in my "Favorites" list.

Many long years ago I took a course on Medicinal Herbs. One thing I came away was that sometime what one would think would be safe, was not really. I was pregnant at the time and I remember being told that blackberry and raspberry teas are good for stimulating the cervix, so to NOT drink them until the pregnancy is far far along (and I did at 38 weeks, but still had to be induced at 42 weeks!).

The instructor did caution us on plant identification, mentioning that a couple had died by making tea from foxglove thinking it was some other plant. She also mentioned that recent research had shown that comfrey could be poisonous. I checked pubmed on comfrey and found this interesting paper on animals, milk and the poisonous plant they might eat:
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/68/3/892

I should also explain that both food and herbs contain chemicals. Well, actually, everything contains chemicals. It does us absolutely no good to eat stuff without chemicals, because we need them to live. Vitamins are chemicals, and if we are deprived of some like Vitamin C and D we can become very ill. Some of the elements we get from food and herbs are calcium and iron... without them we would become very ill.

Also, if some foods are consumed at certain times they can effect medications, or even the absorption of other nutrients. One common thing is that grapefruit juice affects medicinal drugs (lots of PubMed links with lots of long chemical drug names).

Also, some foods do effect people in adverse ways. My sister has lactose intolerance and cannot digest dairy products. I know a few people who have gluten intolerance. Also, every year there is a tragic story of someone having a deadly allergic reaction to peanuts, shellfish, and other foods.

So please do not automatically equate food, herbs and natural with "safe" or even "healthy".

 

[vaidya]

Skeptics and critical thinkers do not accept testimonials as evidence, and they understand that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. They understand that no one study can stand in isolation, that truth is determined by looking at the entire body of research and considering quality and coherence.

what's your position on off-label use of pharmaceuticals by doctors?

 

[Chris Haynes]

another armchair skeptic - like cockroaches out of the woodwork...

btw, do you know how William Withering "discovered" digitalis? he learned about it from a Shropshire herbalist that had been successfully treating "cardiac dropsy" for years, without any knowledge of cardiac glycosides or any "chemicals"

this was the first herb lost to herbalists - once they isolated the glycosides it was taken away by "regulators" who apparently knew more than the very people who introduced it to them!

there is ample evidence of this kind of arrogance and conceit in medicine, and it plays itself out again and again

Yes, yes... that is what is important! Herbs are the where real medicine started, it is very important to understand that.

Oh, and how to use the "shift" key on your keyboard. There is one located on both sides, it helps to make what you write more literate. Though I suspect with the quality of the verbiage used by you, there is a faint hope of that.

It also helps if you actually read and understand the content of the posts you are responding to.

 

[vaidya]

As a gardener I know there are more and better lists of poisonous plants out there (when my children were small I concentrated on edible landscaping to make sure it was a safe garden, that has changed now since I have added delphiniums and daffodils). That list includes Autumn Crocus, but I also grow Saffron Crocus that also bloom in the fall and are NOT poisonous. I just forgot where I put poisonous plant websites in my "Favorites" list.

Many long years ago I took a course on Medicinal Herbs. One thing I came away was that sometime what one would think would be safe, was not really. I was pregnant at the time and I remember being told that blackberry and raspberry teas are good for stimulating the cervix, so to NOT drink them until the pregnancy is far far along (and I did at 38 weeks, but still had to be induced at 42 weeks!).

The instructor did caution us on plant identification, mentioning that a couple had died by making tea from foxglove thinking it was some other plant. She also mentioned that recent research had shown that comfrey could be poisonous. I checked pubmed on comfrey and found this interesting paper on animals, milk and the poisonous plant they might eat:
http://jas.fass.org/cgi/reprint/68/3/892

I should also explain that both food and herbs contain chemicals. Well, actually, everything contains chemicals. It does us absolutely no good to eat stuff without chemicals, because we need them to live

.

the term "chemical" is also a vernacular term, meaning something synthesized in a lab, or isolated chemicals deprived of the biochemical milieu in which they were metabolized

like when a mother of a baby doesn't want to give her child OTC cough syrup because of all the "chemicals"

skeptics will deride her, but she is exactly right to be worried about these chemicals, as has been evidenced recently with warnings issued by both the FDA and Health Canada

safe alternatives do exist, such as mullein tea, something that has an enormous body of traditional and empirical use behind it - and it "works" at least enough to the satisfaction of the mother, who sees her child getting better

it might not be the hard evidence that skeptics require, but they apply a double standard to almost everything so its easy to dismiss their opinions

So please do not automatically equate food, herbs and natural with "safe" or even "healthy"

there is nothing 100% or 100% healthy - everything has risk - even breathing or walking down the street

its how we calculate these risks, and the evidence that demonstrates harm

so far, herbs and supplements have demonstrated a margin of safety far beyond that of pharmaceuticals, which is exactly what people are driving at when they call them "safer" or "healthy"

 

[vaidya]

Oh, and how to use the "shift" key on your keyboard. There is one located on both sides, it helps to make what you write more literate. Though I suspect with the quality of the verbiage used by you, there is a faint hope of that.

[/QUOTE]

actually, me and ee cummings are doing it just to bug you
i hope it has its desired effect

 

[Chris Haynes]

what's your position on off-label use of pharmaceuticals by doctors?

What does that have to do with herbs?

 

[fls]

you can't have it both ways linda

the double-blind placebo controlled trial cannot be used to ascertain the mechanism of action of polyherbal pharmacy, which is how the vast majority of herbalists practice

Why not? The DBPCT doesn't put any restrictions on what you use or how you use it.

so, we are forced to accept the current paradigm to explain ourselves, and despite the odds, there is still a large body of evidence that supports clincal usage

i will state again that the onus is on you to disprove efficacy

Why? The 'evidence' that supports clinical usage is of the type that is easily wrong. For all I know, it could all be wrong. Why should I trust that, until proven otherwise?

i posted a case history on glaucoma - your comments are notably absent - in fact, you conveniently pick and choose what you respond to, which only demonstrates your bias

There isn't much to say. The IOP will vary by 10 mm Hg in people with glaucoma, depending upon time of day and other factors. A variation mostly of a few mm Hg and a maximum of 8 is what we'd expect to see if the herbal supplement had no effect.

you may not like it, but this only one small example of many many more case histories that would be difficult to analyze according to your criteria, but instead of re-examining your criteria, it is easier and much more convenient for you to disregard it

I didn't find that difficult to analyze.

in this case, the ophthamalogist stated that the ONLY way she could reduce eye pressure was with pilocarpine - she wasn't sure so she came to see me, and low and behold within a few months my protocol reduced IOP to normal without pilocarpine

You have assumed that you are responsible for the change even though it's just as plausible that you are not. If multiple possibilities exist, what makes you think yours is the one that is right?

i have also reversed scotoma on visual field tests, another apparent impossibility

There are several causes of scotoma, some of which resolve on their own.

the fact that you and other skeptics don't like the quality of the studies i posted is irrelevant - that situation is not inherent to herbs themselves but to a research model that is heavily dominated by magic bullet thinking, in which there is NO money available to do solid research on botanicals

How can there be no money available to do solid research when you've spent pages and pages giving references? You gave three references earlier for clinical trials using Black Cohosh. Money was available for those. Really, how much more expensive do you think it would have been to add blinding and randomization to the mix?

once again, the onus is on you to disprove the efficacy of herbal medicine, but developing a research model that speaks to the paradigm of its use, not try to jam a square peg in a round hole

But you have given no valid reasons for why the techniques used to explore and understand, in every other scientific field, cannot be applied to herbals, other than, "it doesn't allow us to yield the answers that we want."

as i said, contact Dr. Marja Verhoef at the Canadian Interdisciplinary Network for CAM Research (http://www.incamresearch.ca) and ask her about the inherent difficulty in designing appropriate research models for CAM practices

if you dare - then report back to us
until, all your comments are irrelevant

I read through the information on that site. I am already familiar with the ideas presented there.

this isn't my analysis - it comes from the mayo clinic, who are hardly bastions of herbal medicine

No it doesn't. The Mayo Clinic merely hosts the information provided by Natural Standard which looks like a bastion of herbal medicine to me.

i would even try to defend them - however, i do know how that plant has been used for several thousand years in India, and is used to this day

once again, the onus is on you to disprove, not the other way around
lack of evidence, even with the biased criteria you establish, is NOT proof

however, clinical results do count, as per the case hx of the glaucoma patient i posted

You are simply wrong. You are effectively saying, "I can do any crazy and stupid thing I want and you can't stop me."

Linda

 

[fls]

given that your system of medicine, even just looking at physician-prescribed medication as the #3 cause of mortality in the US, you haven't a leg to stand on

As I pointed out earlier, that statement is wrong. It gives a very poor impression of your scholarship if you cannot be bothered to check whether anything you say is actually correct.

Linda

 

[fls]

herbal medicine evolved and has been practiced for thousands of years before the flexner report - in retrospect, it is easy to see that Flexner was making a power grab under the guise of "regulation

tell me, how did licensing prevent the ENRON fiasco?
does licensing stop pharmaceuticals from the #3 cause of mortality?

It must since it isn't.

since when did being a skeptic mean that you can't also respect freedom of choice, esp. where that choice - demonstrably - causes no statistical harm

Your words are not reassuring considering that you deliberately avoid looking for the possibility of harm, and you deny it when others point it out to you, as demonstrated in the Black Cohosh thread.

My interest extends to protecting others from fraudulent practices, and making good use of my resources (public funds).

Linda

 

[vaidya]

Why not? The DBPCT doesn't put any restrictions on what you use or how you use it.

there is simply no way to study this effectively, because every person would have to be given the same formula against a placebo - but that doesn't actually reflect how herbal medicine is practiced, since herbal formulas are compounded on the basis of the individual signs and symptoms

Why? The 'evidence' that supports clinical usage is of the type that is easily wrong. For all I know, it could all be wrong. Why should I trust that, until proven otherwise?

we have established that you have preconditioned bias that won't allow to shift your paradigm - see the problem with DBPCT above

Quote:
i posted a case history on glaucoma - your comments are notably absent - in fact, you conveniently pick and choose what you respond to, which only demonstrates your bias
There isn't much to say. The IOP will vary by 10 mm Hg in people with glaucoma, depending upon time of day and other factors. A variation mostly of a few mm Hg and a maximum of 8 is what we'd expect to see if the herbal supplement had no effect.

how convenient! the fact is, her IOP has remained normal since, despite a year of it being consistently high prior to coming to see me

you may try to attribute this to being an artifact or normal variation but that would be illogical

How can there be no money available to do solid research when you've spent pages and pages giving references? You gave three references earlier for clinical trials using Black Cohosh. Money was available for those. Really, how much more expensive do you think it would have been to add blinding and randomization to the mix?

c'mon linda, put your glasses on!
comparatively the amount of $$ spent on herbal research is a drop in the bucket

this is why there are very few phase II or III clinical trials on herbs - who is going to pay for it? once again, your statements demonstrate your ignorance of this field of research

Quote:
as i said, contact Dr. Marja Verhoef at the Canadian Interdisciplinary Network for CAM Research (http://www.incamresearch.ca) and ask her about the inherent difficulty in designing appropriate research models for CAM practices

I read through the information on that site. I am already familiar with the ideas presented there.

glad to see you can read a website, but the site actually contains very little info and none relating to the research problems i refer to - what? are you chicken? give her a call and ask some questions instead of insulating yourself with ignorance

Quote:
this isn't my analysis - it comes from the mayo clinic, who are hardly bastions of herbal medicine
No it doesn't. The Mayo Clinic merely hosts the information provided by Natural Standard which looks like a bastion of herbal medicine to me.

Natural Standard is NOT a bastion of herbal medicine
for one thing, there are no herbalists that work for them

they are also a comparatively new organization as well, and with their first newsletter they had so many facts wrong that they were bombarded with complaints from the herbal community

DBs like Natural Standard exist to help companies with their marketing, not as a source of clinical information - except perhaps doctors who haven't had any proper CAM training, but because they see the results of using pharmaceuticals on their patient population, are looking for alternatives

"however, clinical results do count, as per the case hx of the glaucoma patient i posted"

You are simply wrong. You are effectively saying, "I can do any crazy and stupid thing I want and you can't stop me."

???!!! how you can compare this to reversing an objective indications of glaucoma in a patient? your comparison is irrational

 

[vaidya]

As I pointed out earlier, that statement is wrong. It gives a very poor impression of your scholarship if you cannot be bothered to check whether anything you say is actually correct.

Linda

no its not - i posted an additional reference that you did not comment on
please read the thread more carefully linda

 

[vaidya]

Your words are not reassuring considering that you deliberately avoid looking for the possibility of harm, and you deny it when others point it out to you, as demonstrated in the Black Cohosh thread.

My interest extends to protecting others from fraudulent practices, and making good use of my resources (public funds).

Linda[/QUOTE]

you have deliberately avoided answering my question with regard to 74,000 acetaminophen related injuiries, and why you choose to go after a herb with a handful of ADRs

it demonstrates your bias, once again

i say put your own house in order before you comment on others

by the way, did you know that AMA in ayurveda means "toxin"
see, we can come up with clever little takes on your acronyms too

 

[vaidya]

My interest extends to protecting others from fraudulent practices, and making good use of my resources (public funds).

YOUR resources indeed!
and then you wonder why there is so little of the evidence that you ask for!

you are quite a piece of work linda!

Linda[/QUOTE]

 

[vaidya]

what's your position on off-label use of pharmaceuticals by doctors?
What does that have to do with herbs?

shhh... i'm trying to finish the trap for The SkepDoc
it won't be hard - lets wait and see!

 

[vaidya]

Skeptics and critical thinkers do not accept testimonials as evidence

<snip>
A recent Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast interviewed a man in China who told us that even the Chinese government thinks traditional Chinese medicine is less effective, but they are encouraging it to keep the cost of treatment down; only the old folks and the poor are still using it.[/QUOTE]

so, apparently testimonies don't count eh? except when it supports your own bias! and this, all in the same paragraph!! more evidence of double-standard thinking

you guys are freaking hilarious!!! your heads are so far up your skeptical butts you can't even see it!

 

[verisimilidude]

Lately I've noticed that many "snake oil salesmen" have come with some rather impressive credentials, such as the Nobel Prize, National Medal of Science, and professor positions at major universities. I won't mention names, but they're readily available by a search engine inquiry.

This is a scary trend. I've seen several associated with many "miracle cure" type of products with little or no scientific support.

Is their association simply motivated primarily by financial gain? In the long run, wouldn't the loss of respect and credibility among their peers offset any short term economic benefit?

How is a layperson expected to discern between academics who remain committed to the scientific method and those who sell out to embrace more mundane incentives?

 

[Chris Haynes]

vaidya said

actually, me and ee cummings are doing it just to bug you
i hope it has its desired effect

It makes you look uneducated and stupid. Forums have a culture. If you lurk on a forum you will see what kind of culture it has. This forum will judge you on your rhetoric and grammar.

 

[vaidya]

vaidya said

It makes you look uneducated and stupid. Forums have a culture. If you lurk on a forum you will see what kind of culture it has. This forum will judge you on your rhetoric and grammar.

oh yes mum, thanks mum, sorry mum
what what jolly good and all that crap

perhaps you should ask yourself why you take time to _publicly_ critique my typing form instead of the substance of my posts