Complementary medicine strikes again

[Ashles]

How can you remove herbs from the market ?

You grow them yourself. Just because a herb is banned it doesn't mean it isn't used eg Cannabis and Magic Mushrooms are illegal but everybody takes them anyway because they're so easy to come by.

Jambo, surely you understand the difference between 'being removed from the market' and 'being illegally grown'.

It's physically possible to eat cow manure, but it wouldn't be commercially sold.

People can choose to grow and eat whatever they want, but that's got nothing to do with how medically effective a substance actually is.

Sounds like you're trying to shift the issue and the point here.

 

[Kilik]

http://consumerlawpage.com/article/drugs_that_kill.shtml

 

[Bronze Dog]

http://consumerlawpage.com/article/drugs_that_kill.shtml

We're well aware that mistakes occur, Kilik, and that drug companies are subject to corruption. The world isn't perfect, and life isn't fair. That, however, is no excuse to support quackery. Quackery also kills, and it causes lots of harm in other ways. Just look at my quackwatch link.

The difference between evidence-based medicine and quackery: We know evidence-based medicine has benefits. We also know it has risks. Quackery, however, has negligible, if any benefits, and even greater risk.

 

[Hellbound]

The difference between evidence-based medicine and quackery: We know evidence-based medicine has benefits. We also know it has risks. Quackery, however, has negligible, if any benefits, and even greater risk.

I'd rephrase that difference slightly:

Evidence-based medicine kills because of mistakes and unethical behavior. Alternative medicine can kill even when done right and with good intentions.

 

[Bronze Dog]

I'd rephrase that difference slightly:

Evidence-based medicine kills because of mistakes and unethical behavior. Alternative medicine can kill even when done right and with good intentions.

Yeah, that does sound a bit better, though I think it should be pointed out that quackery is only done right by accident. The vast majority of the time it's just plain wrong.

I have a sneaking suspicion that jambo's going to try to derail onto malpractice, which is procedural error and negligence, not an error in scientific principles.

 

[thaiboxerken]

People on here are always complaining about harm caused by alternative treatments. This can also happen with conventional medicine.

Eg I know someone who had motor neurone disease.... Her family were worried about her refusing medication and thought this would certainly hasten her already fast approaching death ...

She actually made a massive improvement and stayed off the medication. She died in January this year.

I wouldn't call death a good medical improvement.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Bump. I'd like to see what Jambo has to say about my reply to the hypothetical malaria scenario.

 

[jambo372]

I wouldn't call death a good medical improvement.

She was old and would have died eventually anyway , ill or not.

She survived 5 WHOLE YEARS after giving up her medication. The week before she stopped the medication they thought she was dying, so much so that she was given the last rites.

 

[LostAngeles]

How can you remove herbs from the market ?

You grow them yourself. Just because a herb is banned it doesn't mean it isn't used eg Cannabis and Magic Mushrooms are illegal but everybody takes them anyway because they're so easy to come by.

*raises hand* I don't. I don't like mushrooms and cannabis makes me bored. In fact, I know several people who don't use either. I'm also willing to bet that there's a few people who are starving and aren't using those.

Nitty point: Don't use words like "everybody" and "all" when making a point. Go back to failing to make your arguments by the usual ways, jambo.

 

[Bronze Dog]

You do realize, Jambo, that anecdote doesn't mean a thing, unless you intend to post a lot of medical information so that we can see all the details. Of course, it'd probably be illegal to do so, so I'd say the appropriate response would be to deal with this in terms of double-blind control studies, and not anecdotes.

So, since you are still reading this thread, what do you think of my response to your hypothetical malaria situation?

 

[jambo372]

You do realize, Jambo, that anecdote doesn't mean a thing, unless you intend to post a lot of medical information so that we can see all the details. Of course, it'd probably be illegal to do so, so I'd say the appropriate response would be to deal with this in terms of double-blind control studies, and not anecdotes.

So, since you are still reading this thread, what do you think of my response to your hypothetical malaria situation?

They usually have reason to believe it might work ie it has shown a clinically noticeable effect in some people.

Several people have taken risks in these situations including scientists.
eg People with currently incurable cancer conditions frequently try untested treatments.

 

[Bronze Dog]

They usually have reason to believe it might work ie it has shown a clinically noticeable effect in some people.

And just what are you talking about, here? And what qualifies as "clinincally noticeable"? And even if they notice some dramatic effects, why are so many herbalists so unwilling to conduct double-blind control studies to prove it once and for all?

 

[jambo372]

And just what are you talking about, here? And what qualifies as "clinincally noticeable"? And even if they notice some dramatic effects, why are so many herbalists so unwilling to conduct double-blind control studies to prove it once and for all?

Clinically noticeable :

Either :
a) Full blown recovery
b) Improvement, suppression/reduction of symptoms etc

Nothing is stopping scientists from testing herbs - they don't need permission from herbalists.

 

[H3LL]

eg A famous case was of the german scientist Domagk, who discovered Sulphonamide anti-bacterials. The first in vivo test he did with the drug was on his own daughter who was dying of a Streptococcal infection, for all he knew the dye derivative could have had dangerous effects on her. People with currently incurable cancer conditions frequently try untested treatments.

Was his daughter a mouse?

In 1935 it was found that a product called suphanilamide from the red dye prontosil rubra proteced mice from streptococcal infection. Hundreds of similar drugs have now been produced and tested for anti-bacterial activity. They belong to the sulphonamide group.

or a rabbit?

.....the fact that a red dye-stuff, to which the name «prontosil rubrum» was given, protected mice and rabbits against lethal doses of staphylococci and haemolytic streptococci.

Hardly untested, but agreed with some risk.

If this helps: in vivo

 

[H3LL]

Nothing is stopping scientists from testing herbs - they don't need permission from herbalists.

Can't you read?

Several post has said that scientists do test herbs, and a large part of medical science is from exactly that.

The issue is un-tested herbal remedies using medieval methods.

Are we using too many syllables?

 

[jambo372]

Was his daughter a mouse?



or a rabbit?



Hardly untested, but agreed with some risk.

If this helps: in vivo

It was the first in vivo test ON A HUMAN.

 

[jambo372]

Can't you read?

Several post has said that scientists do test herbs, and a large part of medical science is from exactly that.

The issue is un-tested herbal remedies using medieval methods.

Are we using too many syllables?

(S)he was asking daft questions about why herbalists are unwilling to agree to double blind trials. I was just stating the obvious - that the herbalists don't need to give approval for testing to take place.

 

[H3LL]

It was the first in vivo test ON A HUMAN.

Better...the rest of the statement is also not accurate.

....daughter who was dying...

A saw "seriously ill". What evidence do you have that she was dying?

....for all he knew the dye derivative could have had dangerous effects on her...

So you are telling us that a Nobel Prize winner is unable to draw any conclusions from tests on mice and rabbits.

....People with currently incurable cancer conditions frequently try untested treatments....

Only alternative medicines.
Others involved in scientific clinical trials on new drugs do not use untested treatments. They are tested to the best possible methods for safety, possibly in vivo, before the final stage using humans.



So, for a summary of the parts of your statement that were accurate:

...the german scientist Domagk, who discovered Sulphonamide anti-bacterials....

There you go. The only bit that was OK.

 

[jambo372]

Better...the rest of the statement is also not accurate.




A saw "seriously ill". What evidence do you have that she was dying?



So you are telling us that a Nobel Prize winner is unable to draw any conclusions from tests on mice and rabbits.



Only alternative medicines.
Others involved in scientific clinical trials on new drugs do not use untested treatments. They are tested to the best possible methods for safety, possibly in vivo, before the final stage using humans.



So, for a summary of the parts of your statement that were accurate:



There you go. The only bit that was OK.

This was from a book of medical microbiology I read years ago. I'm repeating this from memory.Whether she was dying or not was irrelevant - she was still very ill. Just because something appears safe in animal models doesn't necessarily mean it will be safe in humans. It could have some delayed side effects.

 

[H3LL]

Jambo's statement seems to have disappeared.

Maybe it's just me.

Here it is again, out of the quote tag just in case anyone needs it.

Originally posted by jambo372
eg A famous case was of the german scientist Domagk, who discovered Sulphonamide anti-bacterials. The first in vivo test he did with the drug was on his own daughter who was dying of a Streptococcal infection, for all he knew the dye derivative could have had dangerous effects on her. People with currently incurable cancer conditions frequently try untested treatments.