Sure, there is a lot of "crack poterry" out there but I am convinced there are times when a more natural approach will suffice and without the deleterious effects of medicine. For example, I was once diagnosed with a DVT (a deep vein thrombosis that I actually diagnosed after several physicians sent me home telling me it's just a swelled leg) and was then administered with Coumadin which is nothing more than rat poisoing. This thinned the blood to help dislodge the blood clot slowly to help avoid a pulmonary embolism. I ened up with the most terrible side effects using this stuff and had to get off it. During the interim of administrating the WS I was also instructed to not administer any oral supplements of Vitamin E as tocopherol acetate tends to thin the blood and too much thinning can lead to hemmorage. This, of course, begged the question, "Why not simply adminsiter large doses of vitamin E and forego the rat poisoning"?
It isn't that vitamin E thins the blood, it's that it may interfere with coumadin in a way that inconsistently exaggerates the effect of coumadin. Taking vitamin E by itself doesn't have the effect of treating or preventing DVT's/PE's.
Of course, the answer is simple: Coumadin costs more.
They are both pretty cheap. I just did a quick comparison online. 100 Coumadin pills were about $50 and 100 vitamin E about $25.
And people also seem to forget that drugs actually come from nature and most specifically from South America. They are then just altered in an attempt to up their efficacy while removing their safety.
Yes, most drugs have a natural source. So it doesn't make any sense to pretend that 'natural' is different or better. If you are interested in safety or efficacy, it makes sense to use drugs which have been tested in a way that allows you to discover whether they are safe and/or efficacious. 'Natural', as a category, refers to drugs which haven't been tested in that way.
Middle aged men still keep popping their Viagra when all they need to do is to visit their local health food store and take 3-5 grams of L-Arginine on an empty stomach which serves as a precursor to the production of nitric oxide to help with vasodilation and general cardiovascular health. There have been plenty of studies to support this and if I get a challenge here I'll go to the bother of looking that up.
There seems to have been two randomized controlled trials for the use of L-Arginine in erectile dysfunction. Both were negative (one is reported as positive*) - that is, they did not demonstrate efficacy. And since we are agreed that there is nothing special about a natural source, why suggest substituting something which is not demonstrably effective for something which is demonstrably effective?
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1046/j.1464-410x.1999.00906.x/full
"Effectiveness of Oral L-Arginine in First-Line Treatment of Erectile Dysfunction in a Controlled Crossover Study
Klotz, T. ; Mathers, M.J. ; Braun, M. ; Bloch, W. ; Engelmann, U.
Urol Int 1999;63:220-223 (DOI:10.1159/000030454)"
The huge advantages of medical science has been the advent of penicillin and other antibiotics (though many do more damage then good and have the FDA Black Box Warning on them)
Drugs which "do more damage then (sic) good" are withdrawn from the market (if they are not 'Natural'), so your statement must be incorrect.
and vacinations which have upped the survival rate and life expectancy considerably. I would have died at a very young age if not for an antibiotic to help clear up my lung infection-something no herb or BS line from some voodo doctor could have done no matter how much smoke he blew on me or how many needles he stuck in me.
My summation here and my point is simply this: Go with nature when it has provided ample evidence of its effectiveness and when that fails, go with conventional medicine. Nothing is perfect and we all end up getting hit. It may be our choice as to whether we get hit by a Mac Truck or a Volkswagon Beetle.
The problem with your advice is this..."nature with ample evidence of effectiveness" is conventional medicine. That is, there is no distinction to be made.
Linda
*The first study is reported as though it were positive with the following statement:
"At the end of the study, nine of 29 (31%) men treated with l-arginine but only two of 17 treated with placebo reported a significant improvement in sexual function in their diaries."
But what is odd is that there is no mention of a statistical test of those results. So I performed a Chi-square test and it turns out that the difference between placebo and l-arginine was not significant (not even close).