Giving a lecture on old-timey quack medicines tomorrow

However, one of the bottles contains honest-to-goodness strychnine, which was used in very small doses as a stomach remedy until safer remedies like Pepto-Bismol took off.

Another bottle may contain some really dubious kerosene, camphor, and turpentine. I'm not about to uncork the bottle in order to test it, though.

I also have a few bottles of Munyon's homeopathic pills that I may or may not bring to the meeting; I'm still debating that since I've given lectures on homeopathy in the past.

Alcohol, too!

That reminds me; I've got a bottle of Hostetter's Bitters I need to show off. That stuff was at least 40% alcohol.

Just reading this now going to the cabinet and pour me a shot of some swedish kind i have
good nightcap

Only in very tiny amounts. But it was still an over-the-counter remedy.

Nowadays, if anyone needs strychnine for any medical condition, it's administered in a hospital under very close supervision. Strychnine is one hell of a CNS stimulant, and I've heard that death from strychnine poisoning is rather unpleasant.

Horrible, horrible way to die. Body-wracking seizures, foaming at the mouth, it just went on and on until my dad got his rifle to put him down.

I'll take "What do most of the posters in The Lounge run on?" for $1000, Alex.

I've heard one story of an old radium jug at an antique shop that was tested with a Geiger counter. It was so radioactive that the NRC was called, who quickly whisked the jug off to a secure location behind a lead-lined wall.

It would have to be an empty bottle for me, I'm afraid.

Not as bad as Plutonium, but really not something you want to come into contact with. Bad. Bad!

Lots of weird cancers, including one of my heros, Richard Feynman.

Of course, there's always the story of the physicist who was testing criticality by pushing U235 blocks together with a pencil. When the blocks fell together, he pulled them apart by hand. He died within two days, but saved everybody within a rather large area. Probably apocryphal, but it is a common story for freshman physics majors. It even made its way into pop culture in the film, Fat Man and Little Boy, a Hollywood chronical of the Manhattan Project. (Not bad, Paul Newman played Gen. Leslie Groves.)

I prefer Doctor Atomic, an opera by composer John Adams.

to get poisoned by plutonium then radium.

unless you've been standing next to any nuclear blasts lately.

But, you may be correct. I have heard that Pu is toxic in spite of its radioactivity, I am not sure of that now. There isn't a lot of research on the topic given the ethical problems with such a research project.

So the jury's out and not likely to reconvene.

I worked with radium in my senior year in physics, and not since. It is scary shit. I have no experience with Pu except a coworker at Argonne National Lab dosed himself three times with it and he was let go. The guy was an accident waiting to happen, as his history attested.

I never worked with Pu, and by that time I would never had done it. My projects were solar. No nuclear for me, although I have softened somewhat recently, even in spite of Fukushima. But, that's another post.

Thanks for your response.

...isn't plutonium found naturally in very small trace amounts in uranium ore on Earth? That's natural enough for me.

But Pu isn't a natural element in supernovae, which is what I was alluding to. May I state it this way? There would be no natural Pu on Earth except as a daughter product to U fission. There wouldn't be much of it since natural reactors are not common. It is a picky difference, I know.

I am sure the science has passed me by since my studies.

Thanks for the correction.

It's interesting that you mentioned supernovae - did they actually find some technetium percolating in one or two of those?

Not surprising, I guess. Not my expertease, I am afraid. My physics is a bit old and cranky.

AFAIK, supernovae do not generate beyond U = 92, which puts Tc within reach. I would bet it is rare, though. Anything above iron (Fe = 26) is unreachable except by way of supernovae. And above U, unreachable even with a supernova. Again, AFAIK.

...running away...running a LONG ways away!

But oh gee, it was in Triple distilled water. AND it was patented?!?

Of some interest is that 233 is the stuff that goes boom when there's enough of it.

George Holloway was a druggist who produced a bunch of "medicines." Also my great-granddad.

Hostetter's Stomach Bitters clocked in at 40% alcohol. Wheeeee!

Any mention of regulating alternative "medicine" leads to rants about "Evil Big Gummit helping Evil Big Pharma".

"The difference between the effect of a placebo and the effect of an antidepressant is minimal for most people," says Harvard scientist Irving Kirsch. Will Kirsch's research, and the work of others, change the $11.3 billion antidepressant industry? Lesley Stahl investigates.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57380893/treating-depression-is-there-a-placebo-effect/

Paxil is the only thing that stopped them.

and do have a clinically significant benefit for those with clinical ("bad" depression.

The patients I see personally, over and over end up in our facility because they were previously diagnosed with MDD, got onto a good antidepressant that was working for them, felt better, and then quit taking their pills. Can't tell you how many times I've heard "I was feeling so good, I figured I didn't need them anymore."

Me: "Well, perhaps - but when you're ready to quit taking an antidepressant you have to do it with the help of your provider. We want to help you be safe."

So now they've got another major setback, sometimes an incompleted suicide and perhaps a committal or law enforcement action to deal with. Its a damn mess but with the right medication and continuing, effective therapy, I've seen these meds save lives. Save families.

These poor people have had enough cruel, ignorant and whacked-out people like Tom Cruise and other anti-pharm hysterics telling them it's "all in their head."

have a strong effect on depression.

possibly because depression isn't the product of 'bad brain chemistry'.

"possibly because depression isn't the product of 'bad brain chemistry'."

Right, they just need to wish it away, that will work!!!

I read a lot of popular neuroscience books and the connection between serotonin and mood is a well-accepted fact just as much as the connection between dopamine and addiction is accepted as fact.

...saying "you can't see anything evolve!!!" Just because levels cannot be detected directly doesn't mean anything.

but i see, as with your confederate, just another name-caller...

I'm not versed enough in the details of the neuroscience to explain it myself, go read up on it yourself rather than demanding it be spoon-fed to you.

complaining of depression aren't tested for serotonin levels as there is no such test & only recently has there even been the glimmer of such a test.

if you're not so well-versed on the 'neuroscience' why are you posing as an authority?

you're the one who mentioned serotonin, so asking what the test for low serotonin is hardly 'sophistry'.

"Sophism in the modern definition is a specious argument used for deceiving someone."

Asking how do you know the people you're prescribing to have "low serotonin" in the absence of a test is not sophistry, but babble about 'low serotonin' being the cause of depression in the absence of a test -- IS.

The idea that low serotonin causes depression has been repeated like a mantra by public health authorities (see movie below for a nice example). The serotonin theory of depression is a good illustration that if you repeat something enough times, people will come to believe it.

The widespread use of serotonergic drugs for treating depression and evidence for their efficacy has also greatly boosted the serotonin theory of depresion (even in the face of evidence that the beneficial drug effects are relatively modest).

But just as headaches are not caused by a lack of aspirin, the efficacy of serotonergic drugs are not a proof that depression is caused by a lack of serotonin.

As it turns out, over the past few decades, neuroscientists have had difficulty supporting the core of the theory with a demonstration that serotonin was low in depressed people. Part of the problem is that it is very difficult to measure serotonin in the brain of a live human. Studies used a variety of different assay methods and researchers had difficulty obtaining any replicable results.

In the meantime, new antidepressant drugs came on the market that had little pharmacologic effect on serotonin but had similar effiicacy as the SSRIs. This, at a miminum, suggested that the serotonin theory of depression was incomplete...

Now recent data present even more serious problems for the low serotonin theory of depression. New findings that directly contradict the core of the theory: A paper in the flagship journal, Archives of General Psychiatry found evidence of increased serotonin activity in depressed persons. Furthermore, growing evidence suggests that it is an error to even talk about the brain having a single serotonin level. Based on work with rats and mice, neuroscientists are increasingly moving to the view that there are different populations of serotonin neurons that are each independently regulated...

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/charting-the-depths/201007/the-serotonin-theory-depression-is-collapsing

You're playing dumb.

Or are you?

portion of those they're prescribed to.

More than half the people who take antidepressants for depression never get relief.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091023163346.htm

Not surprising when you consider that about 40% of studies of anti-depressants funded by drug companies are never published because the results show no benefit.

and as for those for whom anti-depressants do "work," the benefits range from slight to significant.

If insulin didn't work for more than half those it was prescribed to and the benefits to the rest were widely variable, we'd start to question what was really going on here...

If you said they were over-prescribed, but you never did.

As for insulin, if I took it, I would probably die, since I don't have diabetes.

Would you consider that a failure? would you say that insulin doesn't work?

Same thing for anti-depressants. It's just a little harder to find the people it will help.

You really can't open up someones brain to give a test.

was (since, as you say, there's no test for anything & the theory of how the drugs work itself appears to be wrong) -- and if the pharmaceutical companies weren't pushing these drugs even for off-label uses -- and if the profession of psychiatry and most of the treatment for depression and similar problems weren't *based on* giving out these drugs....

and if practioners' notion of their efficacy wasn't skewed by funding and publication bias and pharma corps' sales efforts and in some cases bribes...

and if the public's notion of their efficacy wasn't skewed by years of propaganda from the same sources...

is a good start.

You don't seem to think so.

And cue the spiel about the drug companies again.

there is good reason to complain about drug companies.

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=pharmaceutical+companies+fraud&oq=pharmaceutical+companies+fraud&gs_l=hp.3...37514.44881.0.45677.30.10.0.16.16.0.1033.3455.0j2j6j5-1j0j1.10.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.mI_GZBHJ3_E&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=cd0820781f4eef2e&biw=1024&bih=580

I would have thought only <30% of the population would get some sort of relief.

Your argument would be to do what exactly?

A. leave things as they are.
B. Take the drugs off the market.
C. proscribe the drugs less, leave them on the market

Seems to me that your entire argument would be centered around B. Everything you've posted points to that.

Am I wrong?

PS. Obviously they do wrong. But to try and take away something that helps, as you posted, <50% of the population, is wrong also.

are many medicines on the market with poor efficacy & cited anti-depressants as one such class. i would say if <50% of patients prescribed to receive any relief, that's poor efficacy.

your defense -- that they're 'overprescribed' -- simply points to the lack of any objective criteria for prescription -- as well as to the lack of real knowledge about how they actually work with regard to 'depression'.

this argument continued when i challenged your claim that chinese medicine was 'worthless'.

my argument is confined to those two matters and has consisted of providing evidence to support my claims.

there are few commonly used medication with a 70% non-efficacy rate, i think. lower than placebo i believe.

Lots of things are overprescribed, antibiotics would be on the top of my list.

50% seems pretty good for something like the brain which we have only begun to understand.

As for Chinese medicine, it is worthless. The gains are outweighed by losses.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/wildlifetrade/traditionalchinesemedicine.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2012/jul/25/manta-ray-extinction-chinese-medicine

http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2008/09/traditional-chinese-medicine-and-endangered-animals-2/

http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/news/336-chinese-medicine-activists-argue-traditional-medicines-threaten-mass-suffering-and-extinction-

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Ten-Threatened-and-Endangered-Species-Used-in-Traditional-Medicine.html

I got about 11 animals, and about 3 plant species in these.

http://www.nature.com/news/screen-uncovers-hidden-ingredients-of-chinese-medicine-1.10430

plus hidden ingredients, which can cause, among other things, kidney and liver damage and bladder cancer.

harms species and in fact have implicitly acknowledged it.

however, it's not the *only* thing that harms them or extinguishes them:

Habitat loss poses the greatest threat to species...It is identified as a main threat to 85% of all species described in the IUCN's Red List (those species officially classified as "Threatened" and "Endangered".

http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/species/problems/habitat_loss_degradation/

Fewer than 500 endangered Siberian, or Amur, tigers remain in the wild...threatened by poaching, habitat loss due to logging, road-building and development, as well as by the problem of inbreeding that has resulted from the fact that, before conservation measures were implemented in the 1930′s, the entire population had collapsed to around 40 individuals...

In June 1996 a game rancher named John Hume paid about $200,000 for three pairs of endangered black rhinos ....South Africa did not start the auctions because it had a surplus of the animals....they were still critically endangered....

But black rhinos are massive animals, and with just under 7 percent of the country set aside in protected areas, conservationists and wildlife departments had run out of room to accommodate them...

The black rhino is a trophy for many hunters, who are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to shoot them. Such men travel to Africa from Russia, Japan, Spain, and Eastern Europe, but Americans dominate the market....Leonard bemoans the common confusion of hunters with poachers. The difference, he says, is that hunters care about the environment -- and the law....(and have lots more money than poachers...)

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-12-09/hunters-paying-150-000-to-kill-an-endangered-rhino-may-save-the-species.html


As for your calculation that the gain/loss ratio of Chinese medicine = negative -- that's one calculus, though i doubt anyone's ever done that calculation.

But the same thing may be said of anti-depressants once the long-term effects are in. As you say, 'we've only begun to understand,' which makes me wonder why 1/10 are on these drugs, including about 3% of children.

Sorry, don't understand your reference to 'trading two species for one'.

in every one of those cases. Do you think the world wildlife fund, the Smithsonian, etc just didn't do it's homework on what was causing the problem?

You're just trying to shrug it off. Ignore it.

Long term effects of anti-depressants? they've been around for 30 years now. 1980.

in 75% of listed endangered species. do you think they didn't do their homework?

your dedication to ignoring the content of my posts is admirablly single-minded.

'listening to prozac' was published in 1993 & marks the wider-scale use of SSRIs.

there are few long-term studies.


In 1988, the first SSRI, fluoxetine, was introduced in the United States... SSRIs were initially considered almost free of side effects. Unlike the TCAs, they could be used safely in many patient populations, including the elderly and children...

However, questions about the safety and tolerability of SSRIs have emerged with their continued use. For example, in the original placebo-controlled clinical trials of fluoxetine in depressed patients, sexual dysfunction was reported in 1.9% of trial participants... However, postmarketing clinical trials have reported rates of sexual dysfunction as high as 75%.

Although severe SSRI-induced hyponatremia was not reported in the original clinical trials, it is now known to occur in 1 in 200 elderly patients per year...

Why have the frequency and type of side effects with SSRIs increased with time?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC181155/


What is not washed out are the side effects, which include the potential for brain damage. A few years ago one of Glenmullen’s patients who was taking Prozac developed a tic—the tongue darting in and out of the mouth—that persisted for months after the drug was discontinued. That sent Glenmullen to Countway Library. He found reports of tics and other neurological side effects, like drug-induced Parkinsonism, associated with SSRIs. “The tics include lip smacking, lip puckering, fishlike kissing motions, and pelvic thrusting,” Glenmullen says. “They are involuntary, disfiguring, and can be very noticeable—and may persist long after the drug is stopped. This is the dread side effect in psychiatry, and it can indicate brain damage. Such reactions are not rare. Neurologic agitation is estimated to occur in 10 to 25 percent of patients, and muscle spasms in 10 percent.”

The FDA mandates clinical trials for antidepressants that typically last only six weeks and primarily test the drug’s efficacy and short-term safety. “We lack systematic monitoring of long-term side effects,” Glenmullen says, noting that a former FDA head estimated that only 1 percent of long-term side effects comes to the agency’s attention. Glenmullen adds that such side effects of psychiatric drugs typically take three decades to gain a critical level of attention, as with the restlessness and involuntary twitching—tardive dyskinesia—associated with Thorazine and other major tranquilizers. “Those drugs were prescribed the way Prozac is now,” Glenmullen states. (To date, an estimated 30 million people have ingested SSRIs.)

http://harvardmagazine.com/2000/05/the-downsides-of-prozac.html

Like your Chinese cure. Of course, that only happens rarely, right? not like regular medicine, where you get all the side effects all the time.

Like I said, you love to talk about the side effects. Which go away once you've stopped taking the drug. There are side effects to every drug. There are side effects to your Chinese "medicine." There would be, if you actually took it in any quantity to have an effect.

Oh, and you forgot this part:

"The combined pressures of commercial demand, excessive hunting and habitat destruction have depleted Asia's bear, tiger and rhino populations. Most experts agree that the trade in tiger bone for medicinal purposes was a major factor fueling the tiger conservation crisis of the 1980s and '90s." - my link WWF

your words:

"world wildlife fund on habitat loss being the most important cause of extinction in 75% of listed endangered species"

I'm going to assume you mean Asia's bear, tiger and rhino populations too. Of course, you'll tell me how wrong I am, and how you didn't mean that.

"For his part, Glenmullen has long prescribed Prozac and other SSRIs and continues to use them in specific cases. But he also suggests numerous treatment alternatives for anyone using or contemplating the use of such drugs—including psychotherapy, cognitive therapy, behavioral treatment, 12-step programs, herbal remedies like St. John’s wort, exercise, and diet modifications. About one SSRI user in four really does benefit from the drug, he says, but he adds, “There is no free lunch. Most of these people who feel so good about the long-term use of Prozac think it’s cost-free. Patients need to be better educated about the risk-benefit analysis. If they are taking Prozac to feel ‘better than well,’ that’s a big mistake.” "

Like I said, over proscribed, but so are a lot of things. Hyperactive drugs, antibiotics, etc. Your long list of bad things doesn't seem to stop him from proscribing them though.

I am perfectly capable of functioning as normally as I can (I am dx'd on the autism spectrum as Asperger's). Without it I barely have the ability to get up and feed the cat. Not all anti-depressants work for all people, and any reputable psychiatrist will tell you so. There are some that have not worked for me. Cymbalta works for me both as an anti-depressant and mood stabilizer. I would be lost without it or something similar.

I suggest dismounting from your high horse.

he knows better than people who take meds that are working for them.

There must be some other reason then that I'm not depressed, since it stopped when I started taking the meds.

I mean, the 10 years before that, I tried a lot of things. Then I started the meds, gone a month later.

Must have been aliens.

you said:

"where else would depression be but 'in their heads'? that doesn't mean that anti-depressants have a strong effect on depression.

possibly because depression isn't the product of 'bad brain chemistry'."

I said:

"There must be some other reason then that I'm not depressed, since it stopped when I started taking the meds.

I mean, the 10 years before that, I tried a lot of things. Then I started the meds, gone a month later."



See now? If you don't, I can't help. It's a personal problem.

It's a kind of absurd hyper-empiricism, declaring if somebody can't see it then it's BS. this kind of tiresome sophistry is spewed a lot by people wishing to deny science.

Had another discussion with someone about the supernatural.

I said they all try to affect the physical world, so they should be able to be tested using the scientific method. I gave examples, such as spoon bending.

Suddenly spoon bending was no longer supernatural. And it didn't prove anything.

They play dumb when they can't do anything else.

understand or have not studied on others being creationists, or following woo woo. Why not educate yourself before insinuating that others who have studied the subject are somehow lacking in education?

very very clever

How sad.

People getting into that realm of wilful ignorance need to step back and let the grownups discuss things instead.

Vizzini would be so proud.

Have a look at this PET scan and tell me again that depressive illness is not a physical illness:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/medical/IM00356

Your posts are extremely offensive to everyone who suffers from this horrible illness.
Here is a good book for you and everyone else ignorant of what they are talking about:

Depressive Illness - Curse Of The Strong by Tim Cantopher:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Depressive-illness-curse-strong-Tim-Cantopher/dp/0859699749

Seems a lot of experts here with no first hand knowledge, nor medical degrees.

obviously.

You can get from point A to point Z without woo.

hipointdem questions the efficacy of certain modern pharmaceuticals.

hipoint dem disagrees that all chinese medicine is 'useless'

ergo, hipointdem has no degree.


but it's not really deductive reasoning.

Hitpointdem sounds just like all the other woos out there, and none of them has ever shown any evidence of having a science degree, or any understanding of science, for that matter.

Just science fear.

It's a wonder you even believe in global warming, if science is so bad.

Or does science only count when you agree with it?

the only two pieces of evidence you had, i listed.

it was the *assumptions* you made (faulty assumptions) based on those two pieces of evidence that led you to *conclusion* C: "hipointdem sounds like a woo".

both ways, not deductive.

Now have you?

You could I suppose, but then on the other hand, you site one study that says anti depressants have no effect, while there are loads of others that say they do.

You can find outlying studies all over the place. Using them to make a theory won't get you very far.

I'm sure you could find studies that say global warming isn't real. But in the face of everyone else saying it is, whom would you believe.

All studies in science are not equal. The basis for a theory is based on the most evidence. The most evidence is that anti depressants work, and that global warming is real.

If you had a science degree, then you should know that.

Either that, or you just want to make a buck, like deepak chopra.

now let's talk about studies that never see the light of day because the results are unfavorable and the percentage of researchers with ties to drug companies and the differential in results obtained by tied & untied researchers.

also editing and peer review issues...

the debate could go on for some time...

meanwhile, 1/10 of the population is on these drugs, including toddlers.

Your hostility towards these medications.

belief in conspiracy theories.

The list gets longer the more you talk.

I've seen a lot of people they've helped, and most people who have conspiracy theories, push things like Chinese medicine, have no real first hand experience.

You just have a belief. And you're willing to bring that curse back down on people, because of your belief.

Not much better then a fundie, in my book.

also, i note you don't address the fairly well-known fact that there's a significant culling that takes place before publication, or the well-known fact that many researchers make lots of money from pharma ties, or the well-known fact that some editors do as well.

all of which skews the 'data'.

and it's not just 'woo' types who say so.

Concerns about the influence of industry money have prompted universities such as Stanford and the University of Colorado-Denver to ban drug sales representatives from the halls of their hospitals and bar doctors from paid promotional speaking.

Yet, one area of medicine still welcomes the largesse: societies that represent specialists. It’s a relationship largely hidden from public view, said David Rothman, who studies conflicts of interest in medicine as director of the Center on Medicine as a Profession at Columbia University.

http://www.propublica.org/article/medical-societies-and-financial-ties-to-drug-and-device-makers-industry

Payments to Doctors by Pharmaceutical Companies Raise Issues of Conflicts

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/25/us/payments-to-doctors-by-pharmaceutical-companies-raise-issues-of-conflicts.html

Publication bias:

Publication bias is a bias with regard to what is likely to be published, among what is available to be published....

one very problematic, and much discussed bias is the tendency of researchers, editors, and pharmaceutical companies to handle the reporting of experimental results that are positive (i.e. showing a significant finding) differently from results that are negative (i.e. supporting the null hypothesis) or inconclusive, leading to a misleading bias in the overall published literature.

Such bias occurs despite the fact that studies with significant results do not appear to be superior to studies with a null result with respect to quality of design.

It has been found that statistically significant results are three times more likely to be published than papers affirming a null result....

The effect of this is that published studies may not be truly representative of all valid studies undertaken, and this bias may distort meta-analyses and systematic reviews of large numbers of studies—on which evidence-based medicine, for example, increasingly relies. The problem may be particularly significant when the research is sponsored by entities that may have a financial or ideological interest in achieving favorable results.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Publication_bias

Funding bias:

The terms funding bias, sponsorship bias, funding outcome bias, or funding publication bias refer to an observed tendency of the conclusion of a scientific research study to support the interests of the study's financial sponsor. This phenomenon is recognized sufficiently that researchers undertake studies to examine bias in past published studies. Funding bias is an instance of experimenter's bias...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funding_bias


Publication Bias Again, This Time For Antipsychotics

As we reported earlier today, new research has discovered that pharmaceutical companies withheld a handful of nonsignificant and negative data from publication when working to get the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to approve atypical antipsychotics. However, the problem was significantly less severe than the publication bias researchers found when looking at antidepressants...

In 1998 Moore used the Freedom of Information Act to pry such data from the FDA. The total came to 47 company-sponsored studies—on Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Effexor, Serzone, and Celexa—that Kirsch and colleagues then pored over. (As an aside, it turned out that about 40 percent of the clinical trials had never been published. That is significantly higher than for other classes of drugs, says Lisa Bero of the University of California, San Francisco; overall, 22 percent of clinical trials of drugs are not published. “By and large,” says Kirsch, “the unpublished studies were those that had failed to show a significant benefit from taking the actual drug.”)

http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2012/03/21/publication-bias-again-this-time-for-antipsychotics/

I didn't call YOU a name, I compared your actions to those of a fundie.

You seem to have some problems understanding the difference.

Like claiming Odin called you a name, when he called your argument crap.

The list keeps growing.

scientific.

You can't seem to see the difference between calling your argument crap, and calling you that.



Who's more "scientific"

to disprove the existence of unicorns.

We all know they don't and never have, yet you want me to prove it.

That, in an analogy, is your claim.

Glad we got that figured out.

Since you're the one trying to prove your case, the burden of proof is on you. not me.

I hope you don't consider that name calling

presented instead of ignoring it? Your actions and lack of a cogent argument show that you really have no sound argument. It's well known that the pharmaceutical industry hides the studies they do that do not show their products in a positive light and hire ghost writers to make any small amount of evidence in their favor appear to be much a much larger effect. The evidence is out there if you're looking for it. Since you seem to only want to repeat your incorrect "beliefs", instead of accepting the scientific evidence your behavior seems far more in the creationist mode than those you accuse of that.

You just don't agree with it.

I was only able to kick my depression when I quit taking statins. I'm convinced they are what caused it, but I was never told that could be one of the side effects. Recent discoveries, or should I say, recent exposure of discoveries that statins may also cause type 2 diabetes are interesting to me, as I used to have that diagnosis. I've managed to cure that by ignoring everything we've been told about nutrition by the politicians who created the food pyramid! Who thought allowing politicians to dictate nutrition was a good idea?

to the discussion. Got nothin'? Accuse someone of woo. Very boring and tired.

decide nutrition guidelines are heavily influenced by the food industry, the medical industry, and politics. the journal of the american dietetics association is basically one long advertisement. it's possibly the worst professional journal out there.

i've heard of many cases where people are told they have diabetes based on a single reading -- a big no-no.

a friend of mine was told by his doc he had diabetes while in hospital with an infection. infection is only one of the myriad things that can send your blood sugar up -- another big no-no to diagnose diabetes under those circumstances, and it shocked me that any doctor would tell a patient that. the person's readings normalized once his infection ended.

i'm very leery of statins for many reasons. they're very overprescribed imo & i think some of the research is dubious as well -- perhaps the entire paradigm.

very clear in my prior post. The Food pyramid was heavily influenced by food industry lobbyists who were able to completely change what we were told to eat from the original in 1991 to the one that was actually released in 1992.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/diet/themes/pyramid.html

As to type 2 diabetes, I was diagnosed with it for at least 5 years, with many labs confirming that. I knew from daily testing at home that when I followed the guidelines of the ADA and other organizations about the "proper diet", my blood sugars only got higher and higher. When I instead ate the foods that do not raise blood sugar, ignoring the advice given to me by those organizations and my doctor, my diabetes and all other labs improved and are now within the normal range and I am healthy.

Processed foods, grains, starches and sugar do immeasurable damage to our bodies. Unfortunately far too many doctors are not looking at the results of the advice they give out and are no longer looking for the cause of disease, but simply handing out more and more pills that generally only mask the symptoms and call for more pills to try to alleviate the side effects. The only reason we're told to eat these foods are because the large corporations who profit from them have far too much influence. Even the training that our doctors receive in school are skewed by pharmaceutical company influence.

details wrong.

1. food guides date to 1916 & have always been influenced by various lobbies, esp agricultural. it's nothing new, and in fact all the american food guides were published under the aegis of USDA which is agricultural lobby city.

http://iml.jou.ufl.edu/projects/fall02/greene/history.htm


2. The biggest difference from the older guidelines was a recommended number of servings and specification of serving size. Specification for grains was 6-11 servings (the low range for smaller people, the higher for bigger).

One serving of grain = 1/2 c. = the amount that will fit on your cupped palm. Or a piece of bread the size of a CD case, which is about half-2/3 the now-standard size of a piece of bread.


3. the committee that makes the recommendation the pyramid guidelines are based on is composed of nutrition people & academics, not lobbyists. of course they are *influenced* by lobbyists, but they aren't themselves lobbyists.

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/dgas2010-dgacreport.htm

http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/DietaryGuidelines/2010/DGAC/Report/DGAC-Membership.pdf


4. In 2011 the pyramid was replaced by "MyPlate":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MyPyramid


I was not talking about *you* in my comments about diabetes, just making general comments based on my own knowledge & experience. Nor was I commenting on your diabetes treatment or your diet.

I'll also say that i don't think the pyramid per se had a big effect on american eating patterns. what had a big effect was the steady barrage of "hi-fat bad, low-fat good, lose weight with low-fat" propaganda in the media.

plus people's interpretation of things like 'low-fat cookies/snackwells' as 'diet cookies'.

old quack medicines and their equivalent (or near equivalent) quack medicines of today.

And too many people, lacking any scientific education, waste precious resources enriching the pockets of charlatans and hacks.

is a BAD thing.

http://www.cancer.gov/aboutnci/servingpeople/snapshots/pediatric.pdf

The New Age movement embraces the corporate gospel dressed up for the woo set and titled "The Secret."

I hope that's not true, your collection aside.

Aspirin and Quinine where two that I can name off the bat that weren't.

Homeopathy, Chinese medicine, worthless.

but yeah, for the most part the majority of the 19th century pharmacopoeia is pretty worthless (mercury pills, anyone?)

If we had to use willow bark as a source of asprin the genus Salix would be extinct in a year.

poppies are still harvested for opiate production, for instance. Digitalis still comes from foxglove. Acetylsalicylic acid can be synthesised in a lab, and there are better antimalarials than cinchona bark, but plants still provide significant sources of drugs.

is done for profit, not to save the plants. We're also not able to completely synthesis natural things, in most cases, and therefor end up with inferior substitutes that cause side effects, which then necessitate more meds. Yea, more profit! When natural cures are discovered they often are hidden by pharma because there's no profit in that. Then they go to work making something infinitely profitable, yet inferior. Greed driven medicine. Not what we need.

A molecule is a molecule is a molecule, they are all fungible, it does not matter where it comes from.

When natural cures are discovered they often are hidden by pharma because there's no profit in that.

Prove it or I'll have to assume that's a Kevin Trudeau lie or pulled out of your ass.

is accuse me of being Kevin Trudeau. It doesn't matter where molecules come from? It doesn't matter what you eat? Ok, then just eat plastic. That's your argument? You're simply here to argue against information. That's your m.o. So, so telling.

The more information we have the better informed we are as a population. The only ones I know who argue against that are republican cons. Way to go!

Your "Eat Plastic" comment is a red herring. synthetic acetylsalicylic acid isn't "plastic".

A molecule acts the same no matter how it was formed, to insist otherwise is denying facts. It is a throwback to the false doctrine of Vitalism that has been disproved for over a 100 years.

corporate interests and obfuscate... Quick, jump in front of any new information.... can't have the masses know the truth... You're better at it than some... but you're are what you do. You accuse anyone presenting anything that doesn't conform to your conservative support of the status quo of being woo woo pushers or criminals. Your lack of curiosity is a dead giveaway.

I have FACTS on my side. A molecule is a molecule is a molecule. Refute that or shut the fuck up and admit your utter ignorance of what your talking about.

Those are the facts that you use to excuse corporate malfeasance and the high jacking of our health by pharma and politicians? Well, ok then. Let's all go with that!

Congrats on driving species into extinction.

is certainly a typical tactic of certain types of apologists for power.

the medical/research/pharma conglomerate is responsible for all sorts of harmful bullshit, but according to folks like you, questioning these gods = 'woo'. it doesn't matter if the questioning is done with full citations by degreed people, in one ear & out the other to the apologists.

sorry, it's your kind who has the 'woo'.

and re chinese medicine, you dismissed an entire complex of treatments as 'worthless'. i'm wondering where the empirical evidence for that global is, you scientist you

Questioning is what science is all about.

I said Chinese medicine was woo. Have the data to back your argument up, I'll listen, and most likely agree. But you don't, and never will.

You also haven't said whether you have a degree. But I would assume you don't. Any doctor of science worth salt wouldn't push hooey.

I'm a supporter of science, not woo. I would expect, in your mind, that means I'm a supporter of power. Nah, I just don't want to return to the middle ages.

saying that statement is too global & there isn't enough evidence to make it.

if you're such a scientific type, why are you so prone to making grand assumptions on limited evidence?

including the assumptions you've made about me, what i think, and my lack of a degree.

not only prone to sweeping conclusions, but also to calling people names and degrading them on the basis of your sweeping conclusions.

really funny when the defenders of 'science' act so unscientifically.

Or so I've been told multiple times.

From what I've seen, and read, and watched, there is no value to it.

It never cured smallpox, measles, or any other diseases. Never made the blind see or the lame walk. And the west has been in contact with china for thousands of years. I would have expected those things to pass like wildfire.

So yea, I think it's worthless. Doesn't mean I can't change my mind upon further evidence though.

But I haven't seen it it, and I probably never will.

One can have opinions, and one can change those opinions.


Really name calling? "puppets of power" or some shit? Really, kettle pot, black.

well, i'm sure that covers every one of those thousands of years, every facet of chinese medicine, and every one of the hundreds of 'medicines' and treatment modalities in the toolbox.

not.

if there's evidence that even *one* is useful, your statement is false.

Let's have it.

The efficacy of tiger penis?

Thunder god vine is a perennial vine native to China, Japan, and Korea. It has been used in China for health purposes for more than 400 years.

Thunder god vine has been used in traditional Chinese medicine for conditions involving inflammation or overactivity of the immune system...for excessive menstrual periods or for autoimmune diseases, including rheumatoid arthritis, multiple sclerosis, and lupus...applied to the skin for rheumatoid arthritis.

What the Science Says

Laboratory findings suggest that thunder god vine may fight inflammation, suppress the immune system, and have anti-cancer effects.

Although early evidence is promising, there have been few high-quality studies of thunder god vine in people.

Results from a large study funded by the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS), which compared an extract of thunder god vine root with a conventional medicine (sulfasalazine) for rheumatoid arthritis, found that participants’ symptoms (e.g., joint pain and swelling, inflammation) improved more significantly with thunder god vine than with sulfasalazine.

A small study on thunder god vine applied to the skin also found benefits for rheumatoid arthritis symptoms.

There is not enough scientific evidence to assess thunder god vine’s use for any other health conditions.

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/tgvine

Considering that the chinese pharmacopoeia contains literally thousands of substances, most little-studied, it's a safe bet they're not all 'worthless'.

Tiger penis?

Got any data on that?

when we consider that western 'scientists' deliberately infected unsuspecting guatemalans with syphilis (precursor to the tuskeegee experiment conducted by similar 'scientists'), just one in a long list of misdeeds, i'd say the west can match the east atrocity for atrocity.

and species extinction? you're playing favorites. how many primates and other exotics killed & tortured for medical research?



chimpanzees are endangered:

http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/mammals/chimpanzee/

the us is still using them for medical & other research:

http://io9.com/5897269/tthe-case-for-ending-medical-research-on-chimps

as for extinction generally, the US can more than match the chinese.

Why do you now specifically single out the US?

Because most other "western" countries have stopped doing that, and every scientist would say, and has said, that those tests on those people was unethical.

You have to narrow your argument to make it not look so bad.

"I may be crappy, but the other guy WAS crappy, so that makes it all OK."

Quit ignoring the evidence against your invalid argument.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/what/globalmarkets/wildlifetrade/traditionalchinesemedicine.html

The guardian?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/gallery/2012/jul/25/manta-ray-extinction-chinese-medicine

http://advocacy.britannica.com/blog/advocacy/2008/09/traditional-chinese-medicine-and-endangered-animals-2/

http://www.ourfutureplanet.org/news/336-chinese-medicine-activists-argue-traditional-medicines-threaten-mass-suffering-and-extinction-

The Smithsonian?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Ten-Threatened-and-Endangered-Species-Used-in-Traditional-Medicine.html

I think you should do some more reading.

When presented with evidence, you obfuscate and refuse to consider it. You and Odin2005 wander around here trying to obscure and discredit (not with evidence, just name calling and accusations of woo woo) anything presented that doesn't agree with the status quo and the version of reality presented by pharma, the ADA, AMA, AHA and others. We've been deceived in so many other areas by the PTB and to think that the greed doesn't extend to medicine or health is preposterous. But then, you know that.....

Your woo is better then anyone else's woo.

Of course you have no proof of that....

If you did, it would be science.

You've got nothing so you just keep accusing everyone of woo.... It's obvious why you're here...

Thunder god vine can cause severe side effects and can be poisonous if it is not carefully extracted from the skinned root. Other parts of the plant—including the leaves, flowers, and skin of the root—are highly poisonous and can cause death.
A number participants in the NIAMS study experienced gastrointestinal adverse effects such as diarrhea, indigestion, and nausea, as well as upper respiratory tract infections. (The rate of adverse effects was similar in both the thunder god vine and sulfasalazine groups.)
Thunder god vine can also cause hair loss, headache, menstrual changes, and skin rash.
There are no consistent, high-quality thunder god vine products being manufactured in the United States. Preparations of thunder god vine made outside the United States (for example, in China) can sometimes be obtained, but it is not possible to verify whether they are safe and effective.
Thunder god vine has been found to decrease bone mineral density in women who take the herb for 5 years or longer. This side effect may be of particular concern to women who have osteoporosis or are at risk for the condition.
Thunder god vine contains chemicals that might decrease male fertility by changing sperm.
Tell all your health care providers about any complementary and alternative practices you use. Give them a full picture of what you do to manage your health. This will help ensure coordinated and safe care. For tips about talking with your health care providers about CAM, see NCCAM’s Time to Talk campaign.


I think death is pretty serious.

Possible side effects include death with sulfasalazine as well. However, in the case of TGV, the 'death' is a risk when the drug isn't processed correctly, not from the correctly processed compound.

You really don't know much about medicine if you think that post constitutes a critique of TGV. Nearly all medicines in the western pharmacy carry some risk of fatality.


Seek medical attention right away if any of these SEVERE side effects occur when using Sulfasalazine:

Severe allergic reactions (rash; hives; itching; difficulty breathing; tightness in the chest; swelling of the mouth, face, lips, or tongue); bloody diarrhea; bluish discoloration of the skin or nails; chest pain; dark urine; decreased urination; fever, chills, or sore throat; hearing loss; mental or mood changes; muscle pain; numbness or tingling in the fingers or toes; pale stools; persistent loss of appetite; pinpoint bruises; red, swollen, peeling, or blistered skin; seizures; severe or persistent dizziness, drowsiness, headache, or trouble sleeping; severe or persistent stomach pain; shortness of breath; trouble walking; unusual bruising or bleeding; unusual tiredness or weakness; unusually pale skin; yellowing of the eyes; yellowing of the skin along with dark urine, pale stools, or persistent loss of appetite.

General

Gastrointestinal intolerance to sulfasalazine occurred frequently and resulted in drug withdrawal in 17% of treated patients. Hypersensitivity reactions accounted for therapy withdrawal in 13% of sulfasalazine-treated patients. Hypersensitivity adverse effects are generally attributed to the sulfapyridine moiety, which is common and is often the cause of serious complications in patients receiving sulfasalazine.

The use of sulfonamides, including sulfasalazine, is associated with large increases in the risk of Stevens-Johnson syndrome or toxic epidermal necrolysis, although these phenomena are rare as a whole.

Hypersensitivity side effects have included sulfasalazine-induced rash, erythema multiforme (Stevens-Johnson syndrome), exfoliative dermatitis, toxic epidermal necrolysis (Lyell's syndrome) with corneal damage, drug rash with eosinophilia and systemic symptoms (DRESS), anaphylaxis, serum sickness syndrome, pneumonitis (with or without eosinophilia), vasculitis, fibrosing alveolitis, pleuritis, pericarditis (with or without tamponade), allergic myocarditis, polyarteritis nodosa, lupus erythematosus-like syndrome, hepatitis and hepatic necrosis (with or without immune complexes), fulminant hepatitis (sometimes leading to liver transplantation), parapsoriasis varioliformis acuta (Mucha-Haberman syndrome), rhabdomyolysis, photosensitization, arthralgia, periorbital edema, conjunctival and scleral injection, alopecia, and interstitial lung disease.

Gastrointestinal side effects have included anorexia, nausea, vomiting, gastric distress, dyspepsia, stomatitis, abdominal pain, pancreatitis, altered taste, diarrhea (including bloody diarrhea), impaired folic acid absorption, impaired digoxin absorption, hemorrhagic colitis, and neutropenic enterocolitis. Pseudomembranous colitis has been reported in at least one patient, and necrotizing pancreatitis in at least two patients. The use of enteric-coated preparations may decrease gastrointestinal adverse effects.

Hepatitis associated with sulfasalazine often developed two to four weeks after therapy was initiated, although hypersensitivity hepatitis has been reported after longer periods of therapy. Associated rash usually progressed to desquamation. Liver biopsy has shown necrosis and infiltration with moderate number of inflammatory cells. Noncaseating granulomas have also been seen. Hepatitis generally resolved over several weeks after therapy discontinuation, although some patients progressed to fulminant hepatic failure.

Hepatic side effects have included abnormal liver function tests, hepatitis, and hepatic failure. Hepatitis has been reported in patients with sulfasalazine hypersensitivity. Hepatotoxicity, including elevated liver function tests, jaundice, cholestatic jaundice, cirrhosis, and possible hepatocellular damage including liver necrosis and liver failure have been reported during postmarketing experience with the use of products containing or metabolized to mesalamine. Some of these cases were fatal.

Hematologic side effects have included agranulocytosis, leukopenia, thrombocytopenia, hemolytic anemia and cyanosis, Heinz body anemia, aplastic anemia, purpura, hypoprothrombinemia, methemoglobinemia, congenital neutropenia, myelodysplastic syndrome, red cell aplasia, and megaloblastic (macrocytic) anemia.

Agranulocytosis has been reported to generally occur during the first one to three months of therapy. Patients often present with fever and sore throat. A few have also presented with a rash. Bone marrow hypoplasia or aplasia is usually confined to the myeloid series, but may be accompanied by erythroid hypoplasia and marrow plasmacytosis. In one review of 62 cases of sulfasalazine-induced agranulocytosis, 6.5% of patients died. Recovery of granulocytes is generally seen within one to two weeks after drug discontinuation, and leukocyte counts and differential return to normal in one to three weeks. Some cases of agranulocytosis have been treated with colony stimulating factor, which appears to increase the time to recovery.

Patients often presented after several weeks or months of therapy with fever, malaise, shortness of breath, and nonproductive cough. Eosinophilic infiltrates have been seen. Respiratory changes generally resolved over a few weeks, however, fatal reactions involving fibrosing alveolitis have been reported.

Respiratory side effects have included pulmonary infiltrates (frequently accompanied by eosinophilia), fibrosing alveolitis, and bronchiolitis obliterans. Sulfasalazine lung toxicity may mimic Wegener's granulomatosis and false positive c-ANCAs have been found in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Immunoglobulin suppression was slowly reversible and rarely accompanied by clinical findings.

In most cases of sulfasalazine-induced SLE, patients received the drug for greater than one year. Patients most commonly developed arthralgias and pleuritic chest pain. Generally, these patients had a positive ANA, anti-DNA antibody titer, and were slow acetylators of sulfonamides. Symptoms typically resolved over several weeks to several months.

Immunologic side effects have included a 10% rate of immunoglobulin suppression and drug-induced systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE).

Transverse myelitis developed in one patient after receiving sulfasalazine for two years. All symptoms resolved within two months after discontinuing sulfasalazine.

Nervous system side effects have included dizziness, headache, malaise, insomnia, meningitis (including aseptic meningitis), neurotoxicity, seizures, dysphasia, neuropathy (including peripheral neuropathy), acute encephalopathy, monoparesis, transverse myelitis, transient lesions of the posterior spinal column, cauda equina syndrome, Guillain-Barre syndrome, cerebrospinal fluid abnormalities, vertigo, hearing loss, ataxia, hallucinations, tinnitus, and drowsiness.

Renal side effects have included toxic nephrosis with oliguria and anuria, nephritis (including interstitial nephritis), nephrotic syndrome, and hemolytic uremic syndrome. At least one patient developed bilateral renal calculi composed of acetylsulfapyridine, a metabolite of sulfasalazine. Proteinase 3-ANCA positive necrotizing glomerulonephritis has been reported in at least one patient.

Cardiovascular side effects have included tachycardia.

Infertility appears to be reversible upon drug discontinuation.

Genitourinary side effects have included reversible oligospermia, decreased motility, and abnormal sperm penetration sometimes resulting in infertility. Impotence (rare), urinary tract infections, hematuria, crystalluria, proteinuria, and urine discoloration have been reported.

Dermatologic side effects have included rash, pruritus, urticaria, and skin discoloration. Rare cases of lichen planus and at least two cases of toxic epidermal necrolysis have been reported.

Psychiatric side effects have included depression (guess it messes with that 'brain chemistry', confusion, and vivid dreams.

Musculoskeletal side effects have included myopathy.

Other side effects have included fever. At least one case of Kawasaki-like syndrome with hepatic function changes has been reported during postmarketing experience with the use of products containing or metabolized to mesalamine.

http://www.drugs.com/sfx/sulfasalazine-side-effects.html

I also know that woo people always complain about the side effects.

Which, BTW, companies are required to put every little thing that happens to people on the drug packaging, sometimes whether it is the drug or not.

another thing, one well tested drug VS.

"Although early evidence is promising, there have been few high-quality studies of thunder god vine in people."

One not so tested.

not to mention that westerners have killed off a hell of a lot more species than the chinese -- more money & power until quite recently.

(west also killed more chinese...)