Why Do We Spend $34 Billion in Alternative Medicine?

[WitchyWoman]

Actually, aspirin doesn't at the dose that it works at, unlike the willow bark.

Quite untrue and quite a sweeping statement. Considering that aspirin is taken for many different reason the dosage will be different. The American heart association always recommended taking an aspirin a day only to find later that it wreaks havoc on the tummy. they have come up with a low dose aspirin but it is not the dosage the average american would take. And they still warn about stomach problems.

 

[JJM]

... White Willow Bark was the basis for the synthesis of aspirin.

No, it was not. The inspiration for aspirin came from meadowsweet (genus, Spiraea), which contains salicylic acid. The name is derived from Acetylatedspiraeain (where "in" is a popular suffix for a natural product). See the book "Aspirin" by Diarmud Jeffreys.

You are wrong/ignorant about so many other things, this bit of trivia is worth mentioning.

 

[WitchyWoman]

You're a class act TheDaver. Of course you fall back on insults.

So your belief is....

You now have scientific medicine that works 100% of the time

you have no grounds to judge anyone with that belief system.

 

[TheDaver]

You're a class act TheDaver. Of course you fall back on insults.

Pardon? And hey, speak for yourself.

So your belief is....

You now have scientific medicine that works 100% of the time

you have no grounds to judge anyone with that belief system.

The words “watch me”, “bear with me” and “imagine” didn’t really clue you in that I was speaking hypothetically, did they?

 

[WitchyWoman]

JJM, while you are correct that meadowsweet (genus, Spirea), has the same active properties it was not the first. And was NOT the basis for aspirin.

"Salicylic acid was also isolated from the herb meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria, formerly classified as Spiraea ulmaria) by German researchers in 1839. While their extract was somewhat effective, it also caused digestive problems such as gastric irritation, bleeding, diarrhea, and even death when consumed in high doses."

The Greek physician Hippocrates wrote in the 5th century BC about a bitter powder extracted from willow bark that could ease aches and pains and reduce fevers. This remedy was also mentioned in texts from ancient Sumer, Lebanon, and Assyria. The Cherokee and other Native Americans used an infusion of the bark for fever and other medicinal purposes for centuries.[4] The medicinal part of the plant is the inner bark and was used as a pain reliever for a variety of ailments. The Reverend Edward (Edmund) Stone, a vicar from Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, England, noted in 1763 that the bark of the willow was effective in reducing a fever.[5]

 

[Madalch]

"Salicylic acid was also isolated from the herb meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria, formerly classified as Spiraea ulmaria) by German researchers in 1839. While their extract was somewhat effective, it also caused digestive problems such as gastric irritation, bleeding, diarrhea, and even death when consumed in high doses."

So which would you prefer- the natural herbal extract from meadowsweet, or the acetylated derivative of the active ingredient?

 

[Hindmost]

Because a good salesman told them to.

Doctors, by and large, are lousy salesmen. One reason for that is that they're way too busy. They're victims of their own success in that regard; back in the 1890s, being a doctor was a fiercely competitive profession and the most important characteristic any doctor could have was his bedside manner and ability to attract and cultivate patients.

Mainly because the doctors, by and large, couldn't do anything else for them. Oh, you caught the clap? Sucks to be you. Your children have diptheria? Sucks to be them. Even the best doctor couldn't do anything, so they learned how to say "sucks to be you" is a very warm, polite, and caring way.

And most people avoided doctors for that reason. They were typically nice, but ineffective and expensive.

Today, the doctors can and do something else. So everyone goes to them. The doctors become so busy doing effective stuff that they can't even see all of the patients they want. So if what you want is an old-style doctor who will tell you "it sucks to be you" in a warm, polite, and caring fashion, go to a naturopath.

Nice, ineffective, and expensive.

Maybe I have been a skeptic too long...everytime I hear or see on TV some herbal something such as kinoky pads or extenze or some other garbage, all I hear is the "sham wow" guy in my head. If I hear the commmercial for an extended period, then I know someone is making too much money with no effort and no conscious.

glenn

 

[WitchyWoman]

So which would you prefer- the natural herbal extract from meadowsweet, or the acetylated derivative of the active ingredient?

Neither. I very rarely take anything.

 

[quixotecoyote]

Neither. I very rarely take anything.

Way to once again have no point. You're very good at this 'talking without saying anything' thing, aren't you?

 

[Estellea]

So which would you prefer- the natural herbal extract from meadowsweet, or the acetylated derivative of the active ingredient?

Neither. I very rarely take anything.

But as a defender of naturopathy and herbal remedies, which would be preferable to administer to a patient?

 

[Miss_Kitt]

Using the "we" here to mean the American public, I would reply:

Because we are stupid, gullible, and looking for a quick fix.

 

[Jeff Corey]

JJM, while you are correct that meadowsweet (genus, Spirea), has the same active properties it was not the first. And was NOT the basis for aspirin.

"Salicylic acid was also isolated from the herb meadowsweet (Filipendula ulmaria, formerly classified as Spiraea ulmaria) by German researchers in 1839. While their extract was somewhat effective, it also caused digestive problems such as gastric irritation, bleeding, diarrhea, and even death when consumed in high doses."

The Greek physician Hippocrates wrote in the 5th century BC about a bitter powder extracted from willow bark that could ease aches and pains and reduce fevers. This remedy was also mentioned in texts from ancient Sumer, Lebanon, and Assyria. The Cherokee and other Native Americans used an infusion of the bark for fever and other medicinal purposes for centuries.[4] The medicinal part of the plant is the inner bark and was used as a pain reliever for a variety of ailments. The Reverend Edward (Edmund) Stone, a vicar from Chipping Norton, Oxfordshire, England, noted in 1763 that the bark of the willow was effective in reducing a fever.[5]

You didn't even plagiarize the whole history. You left out Gerhardt, who produced acetylsalicitic acid in 1853 and Hoffman who produced mass quantities for Bayer in 1897.





h

 

[paximperium]

The American heart association always recommended taking an aspirin a day only to find later that it wreaks havoc on the tummy.

That is of course false. The recommendation for ASA was done with a known caveat for increase bleeding risk and the risk of gastritis. This was known at the time.

they have come up with a low dose aspirin but it is not the dosage the average american would take. And they still warn about stomach problems.

Yes they did. That's how science works. They studied the problem and determined that low dose aspirin with little analgesic affects still had good cardio protective effects and also decreased the risk of gastritis. However what they won't do is lie about the fact that taking low dose aspirin still increases the risk of gastritis.

Now tell me what dose of willowbark is safe and effective?

 

[WitchyWoman]

Way to once again have no point. You're very good at this 'talking without saying anything' thing, aren't you?

I wasn't making a point, I was answering a direct question.

 

[WitchyWoman]

ou didn't even plagiarize the whole history

plagiarize? I think you should look up the definition of that. I never tried to pass this off as my work. It was quoted and completely separate from my own thoughts.

 

[T.A.M.]

you now have more then 15 posts, and can post links. It is considered proper form to post a link to the article from which the quote came, or in the absence of a web link, to CITE the journal or text that you quoted from.

TAM

 

[Cavemonster]

Witchy, welcome to the forum,

I'm wondering if you can take a step back and state your position more clearly, that might help make the discussion less personal and antagonistic.

The view of many on this board is that, while many plant medicines may be effective, there are a few problems with the herbalist tradition.

1. Active chemicals found in plants can vary wildly in concentration, it's very hard to control how much of an active chemical is in a leaf or a piece of bark, so there is a risk of over or under dosing.

2. Without rigorous testing across broad populations, it's hard to predict side effects and thus make a knowledgable decision about whether the risk is worth the gain.

3. When ingesting plants directly, you're taking in more than just the active chemicals you want, you're taking in additional chemicals you don't need which often increase the risk of side effects.

4. Due to placebo effects and other errors, you sometimes don't know if the herbs you are taking are effective, in fact, many herbs widely sold by herbalists turned out after careful study to lack the benefits they were said to have.​

There are more problems, but those are some of the biggies.
What science and modern medicine does isn't to throw out any claims of herbal medicine, but to investigate them.

Through the process of double blinded, rigorous testing, it can become far more clear, which chemicals in the herbs have what effect at what doses and with what side effects. So some of the medicines sold by "Big Pharma" originate in chemicals found in herbal medicines, and some of them are more purely lab created, but all of them minimize the problems I've listed above and increase effectiveness in ways that can't be done without that kind of rigorous testing.

That's why I personally wouldn't want to go to an herbalist.
Can you make a clear case for why I should? Can you address the points above?

Oh, and don't worry too much about the antagonistic tone, a lot of us like the fire of a debate. The more you're clear with your points and your logic, the more civil this place will be (for the most part).

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Meh. Good awesome post Cavemonster, but I'd say don't bother, since naturopath educations teach them that all you posted is bullocks. Instead they are taught this is just a ploy from big pharma to have a monopoly on prescribing even though NDs can "prescribe" all the vitamins they want to without worrying about competing with pharmacists even. Mind you, they also poo poo drugs, and then want to prescribe those too! Bunch of two faced hypocrites is all they really are, but they will never acknowledge their double thinking.

Quote:
"The apparent motive behind the development of pharmaceuticals was to create purer, more potent, and more effective "medicines." Unfortunately, as we now know, the net result was, in many cases, just the opposite—less effective medicines with a whole range of deadly side effects. Pharmaceuticals, however, do offer one major advantage over herbs. They are patentable, and as such, generate billions and billions of dollars in profits for the companies that manufacture them—and the medical system that distributes them."

http://www.naturalpedia.com/Medicines.html


They are patentable and sold exclusively for some years so the company that put the research into it can recover some of the costs. Then generic forms are sold. The author ignores this though, to vilify the process of making effective and safe medicines.

NDs don't do research and don't at all understand the cost and effort of research, so they freely bash the process.

 

[Mojo]

plagiarize? I think you should look up the definition of that. I never tried to pass this off as my work. It was quoted and completely separate from my own thoughts.

While it was obvious that the third paragraph was not your own work, this was because it happened to include reference numbers from the original, not because you indicated in any way that it was a quotation. The standard ways to indicate that something is a quotation are to use the quote tags, or to put the quoted passage in quotation marks. You did neither, and (as T.A.M. has already pointed out) neither did you identify the source of your text.

 

[JJM]

JJM, while you are correct that meadowsweet (genus, Spirea), has the same active properties it was not the first. And was NOT the basis for aspirin. [snipped plagiarism]

No, the main active ingredient in willow, known at the time, is salicin; meadowsweet's main active ingredient is salicylic acid.