New antiquack blog

[fls]

HERBS ARE NOT DRUGS!!

Then why do you treat them as drugs? Aren't you the one that just gave us pages and pages of references studying the medicinal effects of herbs?

Linda

 

[MinorityView]

There is a big difference between the abstract ideal of Science and the way it is actually practiced in medicine. The picture most people on this board manifest when they talk about medicine and science looks like this:

Drugs work and sick people always get better.

All drugs are carefully tested in double-blind clinical studies and the results of these studies move smoothly into medical practice.

Reactions and results in practice are close to or identical with the reactions and results in the clinical trials.

No drugs are ever used off-label.

Doctors are whizzes at diagnosis and never get things wrong or prescribe the wrong drug.

Individuals can make valid cost/benefit analyses of treatment for themselves based on the result of drug effectiveness studies.

Reactions to drugs are accurately reported once they are out in the market place.

There is not now and never will be a better way to determine the best course of treatment for any illness than clinical trials.

Drugs are the best way to treat anything and everything that ails humanity. Diet, exercise, adequate sleep, herbal medicine or any other alternative approaches are all nonsense.

And the only reason anyone ever turns to alternative medicine is because they are stupid. Bad experiences with doctors and drugs never, ever play a role in such a choice!

Pure fantasy.

The way things work in real life is a lot more like this.

A pregnant woman visits her doctor and is told that the doctor likes to induce births. The woman doesn't bother to do the research (trusting doctors can be dangerous) and doesn't discover that that induction isn't justified without a medical need (and the doctor saying "I wanna" is not such a need. So she has an unnecessary medical induction, resulting in an unnecessarily difficult birth, resulting in an exhausted mother and a messed up baby.

or

Someone has minor surgery and is prescribed an anti-inflammatory drug. After a few days they realize (due to a minor cut on a finger) that the drug is actually provoking inflammation. They explain this to the doctor, who says, "Yes, that can happen occasionally."

or

Doctor prescribes a treatment for a minor problem. Doesn't work, does cause side effects, but the side effects aren't spotted as side effects, so the doctor prescribes a drug to treat the side effects, and of course this one doesn't work either, because of the misdiagnosis, and the new drug causes side effects, too, which aren't spotted either and by the time the person has gone through 6 or 7 drugs they are seriously ill. At this point the patient finally catches on to the fact that every time they go to the doctor they a)get a prescription and b)end up feeling sicker. So they go to an alternative doc, go through a detox and start feeling better. After this experience, for some reason, they feel some distrust of doctors. (this exact story happened to someone I know, who nearly died, purely as a result of medical science)

And I haven't even touched on conflicts of interest, ghost-writing of drug studies, corruption in the publication process, the revolving door between the regulators and the regulated, the constant generation of new drugs that are only slightly different from the older drugs, but coincidentally arrive just as a patent is going to run out...

When it comes to the way medicine is actually practiced, you guys are total suckers. No skepticism manifests at all. Hilarious!

 

[fls]

There is a big difference between the abstract ideal of Science and the way it is actually practiced in medicine. The picture most people on this board manifest when they talk about medicine and science looks like this:

Drugs work and sick people always get better.

All drugs are carefully tested in double-blind clinical studies and the results of these studies move smoothly into medical practice.

Reactions and results in practice are close to or identical with the reactions and results in the clinical trials.

No drugs are ever used off-label.

Doctors are whizzes at diagnosis and never get things wrong or prescribe the wrong drug.

Individuals can make valid cost/benefit analyses of treatment for themselves based on the result of drug effectiveness studies.

Reactions to drugs are accurately reported once they are out in the market place.

There is not now and never will be a better way to determine the best course of treatment for any illness than clinical trials.

Drugs are the best way to treat anything and everything that ails humanity. Diet, exercise, adequate sleep, herbal medicine or any other alternative approaches are all nonsense.

And the only reason anyone ever turns to alternative medicine is because they are stupid. Bad experiences with doctors and drugs never, ever play a role in such a choice!

Pure fantasy.

The way things work in real life is a lot more like this.

A pregnant woman visits her doctor and is told that the doctor likes to induce births. The woman doesn't bother to do the research (trusting doctors can be dangerous) and doesn't discover that that induction isn't justified without a medical need (and the doctor saying "I wanna" is not such a need. So she has an unnecessary medical induction, resulting in an unnecessarily difficult birth, resulting in an exhausted mother and a messed up baby.

or

Someone has minor surgery and is prescribed an anti-inflammatory drug. After a few days they realize (due to a minor cut on a finger) that the drug is actually provoking inflammation. They explain this to the doctor, who says, "Yes, that can happen occasionally."

or

Doctor prescribes a treatment for a minor problem. Doesn't work, does cause side effects, but the side effects aren't spotted as side effects, so the doctor prescribes a drug to treat the side effects, and of course this one doesn't work either, because of the misdiagnosis, and the new drug causes side effects, too, which aren't spotted either and by the time the person has gone through 6 or 7 drugs they are seriously ill. At this point the patient finally catches on to the fact that every time they go to the doctor they a)get a prescription and b)end up feeling sicker. So they go to an alternative doc, go through a detox and start feeling better. After this experience, for some reason, they feel some distrust of doctors. (this exact story happened to someone I know, who nearly died, purely as a result of medical science)

And I haven't even touched on conflicts of interest, ghost-writing of drug studies, corruption in the publication process, the revolving door between the regulators and the regulated, the constant generation of new drugs that are only slightly different from the older drugs, but coincidentally arrive just as a patent is going to run out...

When it comes to the way medicine is actually practiced, you guys are total suckers. No skepticism manifests at all. Hilarious!

Please don't present a strawman and expect us to respond to it. Nobody here has advanced those ideas that you are attributing to us.

I am curious, though. If you see those problems cropping up in a field that is heavily monitored and regulated, what would you expect to see from a field that is unmonitored and unregulated?

Linda

 

[robinson]

Yay Minority view! Though fortunatly, it isn't as stark as all that, all the time, you have opened up the issues, the ones that you might think an an antiquack blog would talk about. To discover it is yet another homeo/chiro/herbal/altmed bashing site, was a bit disappointing. What about the quack Doctors? The drug induced deaths/disabilities? The super bugs? The dirty little hospital secrets? The crooked drug trials, the meds that don't work but still sell. the horrible deadly dangers of bad medicine?

How come no Doctor ever rats on the quack Doctors? How come Hospital figures are hidden? Why are Doctors so slow to use new treatments, but so quick to prescribe new drugs?

Labeling things a strawman doesn't make them go away.

 

[JJM]

{snip} To discover it is yet another homeo/chiro/herbal/altmed bashing site, was a bit disappointing. What about the quack Doctors? The drug induced deaths/disabilities? The super bugs? The dirty little hospital secrets? The crooked drug trials, the meds that don't work but still sell. the horrible deadly dangers of bad medicine?

To discover someone else who thinks those complaints are relevant to quackery is disappointing. What about starting such a thread (or blog) by yourself?

How come no Doctor ever rats on the quack Doctors? How come Hospital figures are hidden? Why are Doctors so slow to use new treatments, but so quick to prescribe new drugs?

Factual basis? Relevance?

Labeling things a strawman doesn't make them go away.

It does, for the cognoscenti.

 

[robinson]

Do you have any idea how many blogs/websites/forums there already are? That "attack" mainstream science based medicine?

The Blog mentioned here says: Science Based Medicine
Exploring issues and controversies in the relationship between science and medicine

Now that would be interesting reading, especially if it is Doctors writing it. I find issues and controversy between science and medicine fascinating. To discover it is just an "antiquack" blog, is sad.

The real issues that matter to sick people have more to do with money, side effects, dangers, dissatisfaction, mistrust, and dishonesty. These issues actually effect lives, and every failing of modern science based medicine sends desperate people searching for alternatives. People don't just turn away from medicine and Doctors out of the blue. They don't start searching for alternatives when they are satisfied.

The huge failing of science based medicine is when science is not used, and ego, money, politics and ignorance interfere with helping people get better, or worse, lead to them getting sick and dieing.

 

[fls]

Yay Minority view! Though fortunatly, it isn't as stark as all that, all the time, you have opened up the issues, the ones that you might think an an antiquack blog would talk about. To discover it is yet another homeo/chiro/herbal/altmed bashing site, was a bit disappointing. What about the quack Doctors? The drug induced deaths/disabilities? The super bugs? The dirty little hospital secrets? The crooked drug trials, the meds that don't work but still sell. the horrible deadly dangers of bad medicine?

How come no Doctor ever rats on the quack Doctors? How come Hospital figures are hidden? Why are Doctors so slow to use new treatments, but so quick to prescribe new drugs?

I don't know how many people blog on these issues. I don't read blogs except for what gets linked to from here. However, all those issues and more are discussed at length in the medical literature. There are of great interest to doctors as well. Probably more so, since we are privy to way more dirt than you.

Labeling things a strawman doesn't make them go away.

It is a strawman to pretend that anyone in this thread said "no drugs are ever used off-label", "drugs work and sick people always get better", "individuals can make valid cost/benefit analyses of treatment for themselves based on the result of drug effectiveness studies", etc.

Linda

 

[robinson]

There is a big difference between the abstract ideal of Science and the way it is actually practiced in medicine. The picture most people on this board manifest when they talk about medicine and science looks like this:...

And I haven't even touched on conflicts of interest, ghost-writing of drug studies, corruption in the publication process, the revolving door between the regulators and the regulated, the constant generation of new drugs that are only slightly different from the older drugs, but coincidentally arrive just as a patent is going to run out...

When it comes to the way medicine is actually practiced, you guys are total suckers. No skepticism manifests at all. Hilarious!

I think it is a valid point. Speaking to the perception of "skeptics" that post here. It does seem at times that it is almost a religious stance, that "Modern Medicine" is infallible, and all alternatives are quackery.

 

[Rolfe]

Herbs are not drugs? Really?

I'm sure those kids the drug squad picked up last night with a pocketful of skunk will be so relieved to hear this....

Rolfe.

 

[Gord_in_Toronto]

i dunno gord, i am not a homeopath or slightly interested in homeopathic medicine, although i have seen a couple products like traumeel effectively relieve pain - i don't try to explain it, but hey if it works i don't care because my practice isn't tied to fundamentalist belief structures

you might also note that apart from the economic and social use of cow dung, people in india are devoutly religious and many also view the cow as a divine symbol, representing love and devotion, like the mother who gives her milk to nourish her child

perhaps you will critique this as well

at some point gord_in_toronto, you will come across as a poo-obsessed uniformed bigot

sorry to spoil your party, but your diapers needed changing

Hilarious! Shouldn't you be taking a dose of St. John's Wart of something?

PS Cows are delicious.

 

[The SkepDoc]

The Blog mentioned here says: Science Based Medicine
Exploring issues and controversies in the relationship between science and medicine
Now that would be interesting reading, especially if it is Doctors writing it. I find issues and controversy between science and medicine fascinating. To discover it is just an "antiquack" blog, is sad.
QUOTE]

It is NOT just an "antiquack" blog. The only one who has called it that is the person who started this thread. The purpose of the blog is to promote science-based medicine. The blog will indeed be criticizing quackery because quackery is not based on good science, but it will also be criticizing anything in conventional medical practice that is not based on good science. As a matter of fact, one of the entries I am preparing is about the overuse of antibiotics.

There is a lot of confusion about how to evaluate research studies. Some people think that if they can show positive results from a placebo-controlled double blind trial that constitutes proof. The reality is far more complex. The majority of published research is unfortunately wrong. If anyone is interested in learning more about this subject, I can recommend an excellent book, Snake Oil Medicine, by R. Barker Bausell. My book review of this book will be on the blog on Tuesday. It is the principles described in this book that guide the authors of the Science Based Medicine blog.

There are many medical doctors and PhDs who really don't understand how to apply the scientific method rigorously to medical claims. And alternative medicine proponents like Vaidya don't begin to understand why all the studies they throw at us do not convince us. Reading Bausell's book or reading the SBM blog over time should increase their understanding of how good science can be better applied in medicine.

 

[Hawk one]

The picture most people on this board manifest when they talk about medicine and science looks like this:

Drugs work and sick people always get better.

Actually, the picture you get when you actually study it carefully is rather like this:

Because of extensive testing, we can make fair conclusions about things like how effective a drug is, why and when it's effective, why and when it's -not- effective, possible side effects (why does "natural medicine" just about never, ever disclose side effects to their products?) and stuff like that. Heck, side effects that may actually have occured for completely unrelated reasons (thus simply being a coincidence and not really a side effect) gets slammed on the package of any medicine simply because it cannot be ruled out. Give me -one- example of "natural medicine" choosing to reveal that kind of thing.

Since nobody here has ever claimed that people always get better from conventional medicine, the rest of your post is deemed irrelevant, considering it's based on this strawman/lie.

 

[vaidya]

However, none of the in vitro and animal research you have provided confirms information gathered through traditional means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's take aloe for example (chosen simply because it's first on this list). Traditional uses are as follows:

"Transparent gel from the pulp of the meaty leaves of Aloe vera has been used topically for thousands of years to treat wounds, skin infections, burns, and numerous other dermatologic conditions. Dried latex from the inner lining of the leaf has traditionally been used as an oral laxative."

And

"Alopecia (hair loss), antimicrobial, arthritis, asthma, bacterial skin infections, bowel disorders, chronic fatigue syndrome, chronic leg wounds, congestive heart failure, damaged blood vessels, elevated cholesterol or other lipids, frostbite, heart disease prevention, hepatitis, inflammatory bowel disease (IBS), kidney or bladder stones, leukemia, lichen planus stomach ulcers, Merkel cell carcinoma, parasitic worm infections, protection against some chemotherapy side effects, scratches or superficial wounds of the eye, systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), tic douloureux, untreatable tumors, vaginal contraceptive, yeast infections of the skin."

Research confirms that it is an effective laxative, and that is one of the circumstances under which observation is more reliable - when the effects are immediate, such as with vomiting, laxatives or pain.

Weaker evidence suggests that it is effective in psoriasis, seborrheic dermatitis and genital herpes. None of those conditions are on the list of traditional uses, although they could fall under "numerous other dermatologic conditions".

Poor evidence suggests that it is useful for lung cancer prevention (not on the list), canker sores (not on the list), type II Diabetes (not on the list), HIV infection (not on the list), skin burns (on the list), Ulcerative Colitis (not on the list, but could fall under "bowel disorder"), wound healing (on the list).

Fair to good evidence suggests that it does not work for mucositis associated with cancer treatment (not on the list but could fall under "protection against some chemotherapy [it was radiation therapy in the study] side effects), pressure ulcers (could fall under some of the listed categories), and radiation dermatitis (could fall under dermatologic conditions).

So far this suggests a poor correspondence. Other than its use as a laxative (one of the few observations which is pretty reliable), its other traditional uses are either poorly supported by the evidence or contradicted by the evidence. And important possible uses for aloe were missed (e.g. diabetes, HIV). This means that it would be foolish to assume, without information gathered through the use of the scientific method, that it would be effective for anything else on that list. And it also suggests that traditional use may not even be a good source of inspiration for areas of exploration.

That is an example of the kind of analysis (albeit in a grossly abbreviated form) that I based my comment about "nuggets of useful information" on. I have already performed an investigation - that is how I came to the conclusion in the first place. Your information is demonstrably unreliable. That you think the onus should be on me to show that information that may be false (by definition) is actually false, else you will continue to believe it true, is a demonstration of exactly what distinguishes alternative medicine from medicine.

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

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

 

[vaidya]

And alternative medicine proponents like Vaidya don't begin to understand why all the studies they throw at us do not convince us. Reading Bausell's book or reading the SBM blog over time should increase their understanding of how good science can be better applied in medicine.

[/QUOTE]

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

 

[vaidya]

I am curious, though. If you see those problems cropping up in a field that is heavily monitored and regulated, what would you expect to see from a field that is unmonitored and unregulated?

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?

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

you are playing politics linda

 

[robinson]

It is NOT just an "antiquack" blog. The only one who has called it that is the person who started this thread. The purpose of the blog is to promote science-based medicine. The blog will indeed be criticizing quackery because quackery is not based on good science, but it will also be criticizing anything in conventional medical practice that is not based on good science. As a matter of fact, one of the entries I am preparing is about the overuse of antibiotics.

Fantastic to hear. I'm 100% behind evidence based medicine, as well as evidence based science. It is heartening to know Doctors like yourself are aware of the pitfalls of medicine, and the difficulties of evaluating studies and probably a lot of issues us mere mortals don't even run into.

IMO, bashing homeopathy is like debating with flat earthers.

 

[vaidya]

Then why do you treat them as drugs? Aren't you the one that just gave us pages and pages of references studying the medicinal effects of herbs?

Linda

if the term "drug" wasn't a political football, and objectively meant anything used with a medicinal effect, then we could call herbs drugs

but likewise, we we also have to include therapeutic diets as a drug, as well as homeopathic and flower remedies, massage oils and liniments, etc etc,

the fact of the matter is that your profession has gobbled up the proprietary usage of the term "drug", just like "pharmacy" and "prescription", and describing a herb as a drug is simply power grab

your failure to acknowledge the reality only demonstrates your bias, and unfair thinking

 

[The SkepDoc]

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. They also accept that humans are prone to all kinds of errors and that rigorous science is the best tool we have to avoid such errors. They understand that criticizing scientific medicine for its flaws is meaningless unless its flaws are put into perspective with its many benefits. They are not likely to trade scientific medicine for an alternative medical system without some very convincing evidence that that other system has a better overall outcome. Herbal and other traditional medicine is still practiced widely in China, but the Chinese are voting with their feet and choosing Western scientific medicine whenever they can get it. 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.

 

[The SkepDoc]

IMO, bashing homeopathy is like debating with flat earthers.

Yes, but unfortunately those flat earthers are infiltrating medicine. Dr. Novella recently participated in a conference at a medical school where half the panel was seriously advocating homeopathy and trying to come up with half-assed rationales for proposed mechanisms. There are still plenty of MDs who prescribe homeopathic remedies and believe in them.

Arguing with true believers is hopeless, but we have to keep speaking out so that others don't think we accept those beliefs. 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.

 

[Chris Haynes]

in response to vitriol and ignorance, i have responded, hopefully with even a little adequacy

if i have been able to make even a small impression on some of you, then my job is done

however, and more to the point of the original thread:

HERBS ARE NOT DRUGS!!

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.



























Do not ingest those herbs, please!!! They are all poisons, and can kill you. If you want to play PubMed cites check out this one:
Acute cyanide toxicity caused by apricot kernel ingestion.
A non-fatal case of intoxication with foxglove, documented by means of liquid chromatography-electrospray-mass spectrometry
Fatal ricin toxicosis in a puppy confirmed by liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry when using ricinine as a marker.
Hepatotoxicity from castor bean ingestion in a child.

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

You should take a virtual tour of this place:
http://nnlm.gov/pnr/uwmhg/

And if you are visiting the area you can sign up for real tours here:
http://www.biology.washington.edu/greenhouse/k12.html