Prescription drugs generally create more problems than they solve

[Snoggera]

That is my question/thesis.

Does it have any validity?

I won't discuss, but will look forward to reading a discussion of this topic. I have relatives that rely on various medications for various reasons, and it seems to me that they create problems that cause the need for yet more medications.

I also am quite aware that this is not often the case, and many take specific meds for specific ailments. This is directed towards those that have an inclination towards thinking that meds these days tend to create a need for more meds.

Am I way off base here?

[onebigbadwulf]

1. You're on the right track

This is basically the problem that happens when you try to help anyone. More damage is created down the road. It's something like a domino + butterfly effect put together.


Take for instance a starving country like etheopia.

We see all kinds of people starving so we ship them a year's supply of food and water.

Then what? All those people have babies and the food is gone. Now we have an even greater crisis of starvation on our hands.


Now for medicine. We put people on medication, say insulin for diabetes. Diabetics who normally would have died and whose genes would have been deleted from the pool, now live and spread more defective genes by reproducing. We create an even bigger need for insulin because an unnatural proportion of the population will now be born with diabetes.

This is the eternal paradox of medicine. We help people in the short term, but in the long term we're making things a lot worse for future generations. We're making things like sickel cell, diabetes, and even cancer more prominant than if we just left these people alone.

Then again, it's important to look at the data for immunizations (which can be considered a type of medicine). These affect the entire world and are absolutely necessary.

So to answer your question in short - yes and no.

[Dookus]

3. Isn't a better goal

to cure diabetes and help implement good family planning world-wide?

It seems having fewer children is preferable to having some percentage of them starve to death.

[onebigbadwulf]

5. Good family planning would involve

eugenics. IE breeding the perfect race.


You can't cure diabetes. Type 2 you can prevent via diet. But type 1 diabetes is purely genetic.


As far as starvation and AIDs go - yes family planning is preferrable. But the places where starvation takes place, family planning isn't usually an option - Africa for the most part. This is especially a problem since republican pieces of s*** refuse to fund any sex education that includes condoms or abortion.

[Dookus]

21. huh?

Many genetic diseases are on the verge of being cured. Many scientists and researches are working on curing Diabetes 1, genetic or not. They don't believe it cannot be cured.

My point, though, is that we should look for better ways to address these problems than letting some portion of the population wither and die. The way things currently are, a significant percentage of resources are "wasted" on people who are going to die anyway, further endangering those who have a chance to live. A baby who dies at 24 months of starvation or disease still uses food, medicines and other resources that could be used to elsewhere. It's not just a terribly wasteful system, it's cruel and immoral.

[ronabop]

65. Hmmm...

"Many genetic diseases are on the verge of being cured."

We've heard this for a long time. Actually, we've *always* heard this.

"My point, though, is that we should look for better ways to address these problems than letting some portion of the population wither and die. The way things currently are, a significant percentage of resources are "wasted" on people who are going to die anyway, further endangering those who have a chance to live. A baby who dies at 24 months of starvation or disease still uses food, medicines and other resources that could be used to elsewhere. It's not just a terribly wasteful system, it's cruel and immoral."

This is a self-contradictory position. Do we "waste" money on those who will die because of an incurable disease, or do we "waste" money trying to cure what was once an incurable disease?

-Bop

[Terran]

55. That's a rather bizarre statement.

"Good family planning would involve eugenics." The two have nothing whatsoever to do with each other. Do you have any idea what "family planning" entails?

[onebigbadwulf]

62. In regards to diabetes.

The only way to 'family plan' diabetes away is through eugenic means.

IE terminating anything that had the faulty genes. Keep it in context.

[Dookus]

63. luckily

nobody asserted family planning can end diabetes.

But you are mistaken to think that it cannot be cured. We're discussing two different problems: disease AND overpopulation. Please keep up.

As I said above, there are many scientists and researchers working on a cure for diabetes and they don't share your pessimism.

[ronabop]

66. Planned Parenthood did.

"nobody asserted family planning can end diabetes."

Check out the history of Sanger. She was going to end diabetes, polio (yes, really, dark ages in some ways), STD's, low IQ's, and mental retardation.

-Bop

[Dookus]

69. again

please TRY to keep up.

Nobody IN THIS THREAD said such a thing, and if you need to haul out Margaret Sanger positions from 85 years ago (and if you do a little more research, you'll see she DIDN'T advocate eugenics in the way you claim), then there's no hope for this discussion.

We are not talking about whether eugenicists in the past took that position. We're talking about how best TODAY to address problems of overpopulation and disease. I maintain allowing large numbers to suffer and die is not the best approach.

[ronabop]

72. Try reading all responses before replying, it tends to help.

Sanger was mostly about voluntary eugenics. Valid then, and valid today.

Evolution didn't stop at the age of enlightenment. Here's a fun brain game:
"Eliminate sickle-cell anemia one year before a mosquito and malaria epidemic", The human race dies, game over.

Eugenics is both wise thinking, and bizarre stupidity. The best approach seems to be a mix of massive suffering and death, and limited survival based on genetic variance. The best master race is the one with as much genetic diversity as possible. Cure all humans of malaria, and they are all more susceptable to sickle cell illnesses, and vice versa.

As you said: "Try to keep up". This is not a simple issue.

-Bop

[Dookus]

80. this is fun

I wanna see how many times you can avoid the point of this discussion. Are you deliberately trying to be funny?

This is NOT about a century-old theory of eugenics. This is about today. Specifically, whether or not it's better to try to control population and cure disease instead of letting a lot of people suffer and die.

Now, explain why diabetes is not curable. Please, don't go off tangent.

[ender]

89. in a purist sense, thats an accurate statement....

at a certain point, family planning turns into "you should plan your children", and into "we will plan your children for you", which is eugenics.

[Terran]

100. Okay, that's both bizarre and ridiculous

(A)t a certain point, family planning turns into "you should plan your children", and into "we will plan your children for you", which is eugenics.

For one thing, to the extent family planning is available at all in the US, it's primarily available from non-profit orgs like Planned Parenthood and privately insured medical providers--not the government. These government agencies won't touch family planning with a ten-foot pole because of its connection with abortion.

If you're implying that somehow the existence of family planning is going to lead to the government taking it over, perverting it into eugenics, and then creating some kind of genetic fascism in this country, then you are the King of Conspiracy, my friend. Do you have the slightest shred of evidence that indicates there's any possibility of such a thing as you suggest happening? What, EXACTLY, is that "certain point", and how do we get there?

[Ladyhawk]

39. I agree.

Also, take into account that many diseases have two causes: genetic susceptibility and environment. Diabetes is turning epidemic and I hardly believe that can be due entirely to genetics. I heard/read somewhere that 50% of hispanic immigrants develop diabetes when they move into the United States. Diet is a huge factor here...and the stuff that manufacturers put into our food.

I think it would be better to cure these ailments.

BTW, I am a diabetic. Do you think I should restrict myself from having children because of a genetic predisposition?

Do you think I shouldn't take my Glyburide to lower my blood sugar so that I die at an early age? Do you think I should suffer through the pain of herniated discs rather than take pain killers? Do you think I should stop taking Strattera--the first drug that has had ANY effect on my Depression--so that I become suicidal and take myself out of the gene pool?

Right now, I'm struggling to lose weight and create good health, but with several illnesses affecting me, it isn't easy.

I do understand concerns about prescription drug use. A nasty doctor overprescribed drugs for me and I ended up becoming a near vegetable for several months. On my own, I cut down the type and number of drugs to those I thought I needed: pain killers, anti-depressants, diabetes meds. I even had to cut out one of my diabetes meds when I learned it was causing irritable bowel problems.

Now I'm much more alert and getting healthier. My diabetes is still a bit out of control, but the Strattera has given me energy I haven't had in a long, long time. And it's increasing the nor-epinephrine in my brain, helping me to combat the Depression.

I think the choice of which Rx drugs to take should be a personal decision with input from a GOOD doctor (which are very rare these days, unfortunately).

If I didn't have the Strattera, pain killers and diabetes meds, I'd be in serious trouble.

[ronabop]

67. Ethics...

"BTW, I am a diabetic. Do you think I should restrict myself from having children because of a genetic predisposition? "

Type I? Yes, if you can avoid it.

You have a choice. You can decide to create others who may be diseased, or not. Since newborns don't get to make that choice, I would equate that question with "should I restrict myself from creating children with AIDS, who will die of possibly horrible and painful deaths, just because I have AIDS?".

Type II? Maybe.

You can tell your children how to take care of their bodies, and warn them of dangers.

[Dookus]

84. You don't think trying

to cure diabetes 1 is a better alternative?

[pnb]

109. Why do you assume it has to be one or the other?

Attempting to cure Type I diabetes is not an alternative to what he/she said. They are not mutually exclusive. The question makes no sense.

[Terran]

88. So what's next?

Shall we prevent people who are color-blind from reproducing?

[daisygirl]

102. But that would necessitate that anyone with

an autoimmune disorder not reproduce. Type 1 diabetes doesn't have as clear-cut a family tendency as type 2. Autoimmune disorders - such as type 1 diabetes, lupus, multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, Graves disease, Crohn's disease, and so on - tend to crop up more often in families where other family members have autoimmune diseases.

A family history of *any* autoimmune disorder(s) will increase the probability that you'll develop one at some point, but there's no way to tell whether it'll turn up as type 1 diabetes in childhood, psoriasis at a later age, or rheumatoid arthritis once you're in your forties.

[FlaGranny]

36. Well, since type 2 diabetes is the most common

kind of diabetes, and it usually doesn't begin until middle or old age, when childbearing is a thing of the past, your diabetes analogy doesn't quite hold up. I would say, except for a some childhood kinds, the same is true for cancer. The children are born long before the cancer becomes evident in a parent and treating the cancer has no real affect on causing more cancer in the future.

[w4rma]

2. Medicines are invented to cause specific conditions within the body.

Some of them also cause other conditions. Some don't. The molecule(s) that make up the medicine are designed to interact with other molecules in the body in a specific way. But the molecule can also interact with unintended molecules (or a side product of a reaction might).

[Eurobabe]

4. 'xactly, because they don't get to root metabolic issues

kinda like the way the world (esp. Bu$hCo) conducts its affairs at present.

Here's a really awesome book for you: Metabolic Typing Diet by William Wolcott. There are more ways to solve our current problems in the first 3 chapters of his book, than in anything I've ever read before...

If allopathic medicine cured diseases, big pharma might go under, can't have that!!

[Dem2theMax]

6. Seeing it in action, I say yes, it does have validity.

But there are two sides to every story.
Short story -- me. I take meds every day. Have to if I want to be here. Not going to get into the what and why for now. I only know that I need them to live.

My parents on the other hand, both in mid 80's. Typical seniors with myriad health problems. The doctors seem to love to pile on the meds. Then my parents go home and the problems start. I'm always having to check with them to see what they are taking, how much, when, etc. My Mom is slurring her words here and there. I know it's medication related. She sounds half crocked. Dad had such horrid side effects from too many meds we almost had to call 911. Getting a doctor to LISTEN and cut back on the meds -- hahaha. And yes, they get problems from the old meds and the docs want to add on more to take care of the 'new' problems created by the 'old' meds. Vicious cycle. You have to be SO aware and pay such close attention to the behaviors of people on multiple medications. My parents don't even notice that they are acting funny half the time. Yet someone can stop by and visit them, or call them on the phone and the next thing you know, I'm hearing about it. 'What's wrong with your Mom/Dad?'

It's a catch 22 at times. Like I said, for me, lifesaver. Have to add that it took the doctors (multiple) over 20 years to get a correct diagnosis. During that 20+ years they had me on the wrong meds. So of course that made things worse. I didn't see or understand that till the correct diagnosis and medications were given to me. What a nightmare that was.

If you've got a pill happy doctor, look out. I think THEY create as much of the problem as the meds.

[Snoggera]

7. I have seen what your parents are going through many times before

Doctors (insert the word: western gods) don't seem to take into account lessened metabolic rates, in addition to numerous other results of aging. You would think they would, but many don't.

Best of wishes and luck with your situations.

[Lizzie Borden]

49. I have lupus. I have to take medication in order to live.,

and I think I have as much right to live as anyone. It's an individual thing

[stickdog]

167. A modest suggestion indeed ...

[Dem2theMax]

172. I sure hope you didn't take anything I said as somehow

coming across that people should NOT be allowed to take medications.
Because your reply to me is coming across that way.

Like I said, I would be dead, many times over, if not for the meds I take. I'm concerned about the doctors who don't/won't pay attention to their patients and the patients needs.

[DiverDave]

8. I used to take

mass quantitys of pain medications.
The problem with that is:
you develop a tolerance
as time goes by, every little pain is magnified, so you take more.

I have stopped taking them, as the pain I deal with is better then the all the effects of the "medicine"

[Ladyhawk]

41. I've actually been taking fewer pain meds.

Because Strattera gave me more energy, I've been able to exercise. As I exercise, my muscles are able to support my spine better.

There are days when I have to take more pains meds than usual, but there are days when I take far fewer. That didn't happen before I got some much-needed relief from Depression and some energy.

[sweetheart]

9. I agree, ALL medicines should be over the counter

Perscription is a scam for doctors, when i already know what works
with my body for chronic issues.

I'm for reducing the FDA's powers to "advisory" that a new medication
may or may not be FDA approved... BUYER beware. Then FDA medicines
will be more expensive and those who have the cash can go to doctors
and get perscriptions. Others of us can simply buy the generic
copy-drugs.

The monopoly on drugs issuance to doctors is patently absurd given
the freedom of speech. The first amendment of free speech, is also
to freely listen, obviously. Listening is consuming. If spending
money on campaigns is free speech, then so is taking whichever drugs
you damn well please.

When mass murderers make the laws, likely the entire basis of law
is criminal... why put up with it.

[Baltimoreboy]

10. Are you serious?

Ordinary people lack the knowledge and training to identify drug conflicts, symptoms, side effects, etc.

Your call is for anarchy. Sounds awful libertarian and I do mean awful.

[sweetheart]

13. You are free to use a doctor

I've been coerced for years to visit doctors to get asthsma medication
that i am already well informed of. It is a ripoff.

Yes, i'm a liberal libertarian, and do not believe my taxes should
pay for any business to have a monopoly, even doctors.

Under what i propose, you can visit a doctor. LIkely with serious
issues like heart medication, one would be seriously unwise to
self medicate, but that is freedom and liberty is it not.

In 42 years, i've only met 1 doctor that knew more about athsma than
me, a chronic, extermely well informed sufferer. Why should i be
forced to pay some scamm when medicine is medicine?

[Baltimoreboy]

15. It takes skill to prescribe drugs

Not desire, not dreams, not fantasies and not libertarian ideals.

Suppose you are right and you know more about asthma. Does that mean you know more about how asthma drugs combine with other drugs? Does that make you an expert on liver medications and how they interact with your other prescriptions?

A non-doctor who treats himself has a fool for a patient.

[sweetheart]

28. Hardly, especially when you've been taking them years

I've been using the same athsma medication for years, and am "now"
able to get it on repeat perscription from the british NHS without
fuss or a doctors appointment as long as it is at my home clinic....

In the US, i went without too often and had serious problems as i
did not have the time/money to pay some doctor to perscribe me "my"
medicine.

I know pain as well, and when it hurts "REAL" bad, like a toothache.
and find it utterly patronizing when some puritan doctor suggests i
take advil for extreme tooth pain.

I'd settle for skittles middle ground... let a whole series of soft
medications be available for non-perscriptions, as what kind of person
goes to the druggist and buys a steroid-athsma drug when they don't
need one?... only an athsmatic.

I know that if my lower back hurts a bundle, a good cannabis joint
can help, and a few drams of whiskey as well... perhaps there should
be a less harmful sort of pain killer in the public domain, eh?

I don't mean to be purely black and white. Perhaps this:

1. If you can show you've been taking a medication, you should be
able to get a refill without a perscription.

2. All drugs that don't have serious side effects or primary effects
should be available off-perscription.

I've been taking organic drugs for years, mushrooms, cannabis, yea..
and they are not on perscription fortunately. Geesh, the one benefit
of the stupid drugs war is that those drugs are not regulated by
some miserly doctors.

[Pithlet]

155. Without the regulation that you're against

You could never be sure that that asthma medicine you were getting was as potent each time you took it, or if it was indeed asthma medication and not a sugar pill packaged as medicine.

[Skittles]

14. I agree more drugs should be over-the-counter

but ALL of them? No way.

[Kanary]

19. What's needed is for the US to do what other countries do,

and that's to not allow patents on medications.

That would drop prices considerably!

Kanary

[Cleita]

29. Also all the money spent on expensive advertising

is passed on to the consumer. It used to be that drug salesmen visited the doctors when a new medication was manufactured and tested. They left samples and literature for the doctor. No one else needs to know about these drugs except the doctors and pharmacists. Advertising to the general public is a ploy to get patients to ask their doctors for new patented medicines that are very expensive at first and not going on generic drugs once the patents for older, but equally effective medications, run out. I think we should pass laws banning advertising

[ronabop]

68. Newsflash: Total Population of Mexico is now dead.

I had an awful bug bite in Toluca, MX. I called my US pharmacist (why do we even keep doctors around anymore?), he recommended a few pills, I got them. Cost to me: $1.52 in phone bills, about 10 bucks in medicines.

Legalizing OTC treatment does not make people stupid, it eliminates a psychotic monopoly that US doctors and pharmacists currently have on obtaining molecules.

-Bop

[TopesJunkie]

146. Oh great. Then insurance can go through the roof, as ERs are flooded.

Give me a break. People don't listen to what they need to know about meds, as it is. This is exactly the type of thing that would cause numerous side effects and deaths.

[stickdog]

153. But we'd soon weed out the worst offenders.

Just pointing out the upside ...

[sweetheart]

179. For the 40 million without health insurance

Appearantly you've never been needing a basic medication for a basic
ailment and not had the cash for a doctor's signature. As someone
who has been in this situation, there are private doctors who love
to take your cash to sign a form... its a scam.

The monopoly is unhealthy. I accept your point that truly dangerous
medications be only on recommended advise, but this is a much smaller
set than we discuss. I'm sure you've never kept leftover perscription
pills for pain or other occurrances that you might need again so that
you don't have to pay the doctor's scam... but if you're a normal
american, likely you have.

Already there are 1000's of deaths today from people self-adminstering
drugs like heroin, cocaine, alcohol and nicotine without doctors
supervision. I merely suggest we bring them all in to an open
framework and get everyone medical coverage. Until then, the veiw
that the FDA does a service is somewhat undermined by the facts with
the disenfranchised 40 million. Better they can get clean, pure
medication at the pharmacy than on the street corner or in mexico.

[luaneryder]

11. What I have noticed about Rx's

is how much the prescribing physician does not know about drugs, their side effects, their interactions with other drugs, etc. Physicians are courted by drug company reps and the newest, most expensive meds are being pushed with incentives to the prescriber. I've had a myriad of problems arise from drug interactions and learned to researched a new Rx before getting it filled and taking it. Plus, many doctors don't listen whe you tell them the reactions you are having to a meds. I had horrendous withdrawal symptoms from Paxil and my doc said he had never heard of it causing them; it was all in my mind. I must absolutely disagree with the poster who said all drugs should be OTC: we'd have more med related deaths and injuries than ever if that were the case.

[no_hypocrisy]

12. Part of the issue is when you take one medication, it creates a chemical

imbalance somewhere else. Sometimes you need yet a second follow-up medication to treat the imbalance, and so on. But the body does change with the introduction of and maintenance on even one medication.

Yet I wouldn't argue against the premise that without some medications, patients would either be dead by now or they would be so thoroughly disabled, they would have no meaningful life on their terms.

Maybe it's because one (rightfully at times) second guesses physicians who write the squibs because they might be de facto sales reps for the drug companies.

[On the Road]

16. I Have Often Had Side Effects

that were worse than the benefit provided. I can't generalize about all drugs or all people -- this is just my experience.

I have occasional migraine headaches. Recently, I began to have the initial symptoms quire frequently -- every day or two -- even though I could usually prevent a full-blown headache. So I began a once-a-day prescription medication called Verapimil, which is supposed to prevent migraines from ever developing.

After a few days, I started to become exhausted, dizzy, and disoriented. I've had to stop the Verapimil.

I've also had bad reactions to various antidepressants and had to stop taking them altogether.

[DocSavage]

17. Side Effects

Work in a Pharmacy. The saying is "show me a drug with no side effects, and I will show you a drug that does not work. The doc gave you verapamil because you most likly were having vascular headaches. Verapamil is a calcium channel blocker, affects blood pressure and vascular wall elasticity. One side effect of all BP meds is feelings of being tired, loss of energy. THese tend to pass after you get used to the meds. You should always report side effects to your perscribing doc. There is the possibility of decreasing your dosage or changing you to a different med.

As for OTC on all meds. Well, a person may be very familiar with the chronic condition that they have and feel that they are capable of managing it. However, acute conditions or progressive diseases require examination and testing for a definitive diagnosis or stage of the disease. Different meds are required and indicated for certain types of disease processes that a uninformed and uneducated person concerning theses processes is not able to choose. OTCing all meds would cull the heard of the sick though. Never mind the massive increase in nosicomial infections, increased resistance to antibiotics. It would be incredible.

[LunaC]

18. Western vs Eastern medicine

Western medicine treats the SYMPTOMS while Eastern medicine treats the CAUSE.

Treating the symptoms only perpetuates the problem and ensures that the pharmaceutical companies receive continuing profits. Follow the money.


You may find this abstract to be of interest:

Death by Medicine
http://www.nutritioninstituteofamerica.net/research/DeathByMedicine/DeathByMedicine1.htm


It's also interesting to note that the death rate DROPS when Doctors go on strike.

"The June 10, 2000 issue of the British Medical journal reports on an interesting statistic that has occurred in Israel.
It seems that three months ago physicians in public hospitals implemented a program of sanctions in response to a
labor dispute over a contract proposal by the government. The article stated that the Israel Medical Association
began an action in March to protest against the treasury's proposed imposition of a new four year wage contract
for doctors. Since then, the medical doctors have cancelled hundreds of thousands of visits to outpatient clinics and
have postponed tens of thousands of elective operations.

"To find out whether the industrial action was affecting deaths in the
country, the Jerusalem Post interviewed non-profit making Jewish burial
societies, which perform funerals for the vast majority of Israelis. Hananya
Shahor, the veteran director of Jerusalem's Kehilat Yerushalayim burial
society said, "The number of funerals we have performed has fallen
drastically." Meir Adler, manager of the Shamgar Funeral Parlour, which
buries most other residents of Jerusalem, declared with much more
certainty: "There definitely is a connection between the doctors
sanctions and fewer deaths. We saw the same thing in 1983 when the
Israel Medical Association applied sanctions for four and a half
months."
http://www.chiropracticresearch.org/NEWSdeath_rate_drops_during_doctor_s.htm


Doctors themselves question the validity of pharmaceuticals......16 Quotes on Drugs:

1. "The cause of most disease is in the poisonous drugs physicians
superstitiously give in order to effect a cure." Charles E. Page, M.D.

2. "Medicines are of subordinate importance because of their very nature they
can only work symptomatically." Hans Kusche, M.D.

3. "If all the medicine in the world were thrown into the sea, it would be bad for
the fish and good for humanity" O.W. Holmes, (Prof. of Med. Harvard
University)

4. "Drug medications consists in employing, as remedies for disease, those
things which produce disease in well persons. Its materia medica is simply a lot
of drugs or chemicals or dye-stuffs in a word poisons. All are incompatible with
vital matter; all produce disease when brought in contact in any manner with the
living; all are poisons." R.T. TraIl, M.D., in a two and one half hour lecture to
members of congress and the medical profession, delivered at the Smithsonian
Institute in Washington D.C.

5. "Every drug increases and complicates the patients condition." Robert
Henderson, M.D.

6. "Drugs never cure disease. They merely hush the voice of nature's protest,
and pull down the danger signals she erects along the pathway of transgression.
Any poison taken into the system has to be reckoned with later on even though
it palliates present symptoms. Pain may disappear, but the patient is left in a
worse condition, though unconscious of it at the time." Daniel. H. Kress, M.D.

7. "The greatest part of all chronic disease is created by the suppression of
acute disease by drug poisoning." Henry Lindlahr, M.D.

8. "Every educated physician knows that most diseases are not appreciably
helped by medicine." Richard C. Cabot, M.D. (Mass. Gen. Hospital)

9. "Medicine is only palliative, for back of disease lies the cause, and this cause
no drug can reach." Wier Mitchel, M.D.

10. "The person who takes medicine must recover twice, once from the disease
and once from the medicine." William Osler, M.D.

11. "Medical practice has neither philosophy nor common sense to recommend
it. In sickness the body is already loaded with impurities. By taking drug -
medicines more impurities are added, thereby the case is further embarrassed
and harder to cure." Elmer Lee, M.D., Past Vice President, Academy of
Medicine.

12. "Our figures show approximately four and one half million hospital
admissions annually due to the adverse reactions to drugs. Further, the average
hospital patient has as much as thirty percent chance, depending how long he is
in, of doubling his stay due to adverse drug reactions." Milton Silverman, M.D.
(Professor of Pharmacology, University of California)

13. "Why would a patient swallow a poison because he is ill, or take that which
would make a well man sick." L.F. Kebler, M.D.

14. "What hope is there for medical science to ever become a true science
when the entire structure of medical knowledge is built around the idea that
there is an entity called disease which can be expelled when the right drug is
found?" John H. Tilden, M.D.

15. "The necessity of teaching mankind not to take drugs and medicines, is a
duty incumbent upon all who know their uncertainty and injurious effects; and
the time is not far distant when the drug system will be abandoned." Charles
Armbruster, M. D.

16. "We are prone to thinking of drug abuse in terms of the male population
and illicit drugs such as heroin, cocaine, and marijuana. It may surprise you to
learn that a greater problem exists with millions of women dependent on legal
prescription drugs." Robert Mendelsohn, M.D


As an herbalist for more than 25 years, I view doctors with a great deal of contempt. They have no incentive to improve their craft since they get paid whether you improve or deteriorate, live or die. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), Doctors are the THIRD leading cause of death in the US, causing 250,000 deaths every year.

http://www.mercola.com/2000/jul/30/doctors_death.htm

If that doesn't sent a chill down your spine, nothing will!

[Dookus]

20. It is blatantly untrue

that Western medicine only treats symptoms while Eastern medicine treats causes.

How could that be true when a lot of Eastern medicine didn't even KNOW the causes of disease? If you have an infection, the symptoms are fever, pain, etc. The CAUSE is bacteria. Anti-biotics kill the CAUSE. They don't just give you aspirin for the fever.

And what about homeopathy? Not Eastern, but "alternative". It's whole basis is treating disease by using poisons that cause the same symptoms of the disease, regardless of underlying cause.

I've found the only people who sell the idea that Western medicine only treats symptoms are also selling something else.

[Susang]

24. Damn you Dookus!

I was just formulating this long winded response and there you go, beating me to the punch again!

[put out]

25. Amen, friend.

I want proof, not anecdotal evidence. Not dippy, vague theories. Not some person's mystical philosophy about the nature of healing. Not some hazy musings and ramblings about naturopathy and meridians and shakras and all that. I want science. If "alternative" health treatments and practitioners can't stand up to scientific proof that they work, sell it somewhere else and quit ripping scared, uninformed people off.

[Eloriel]

44. Here's what's wrong with your "demand"

I want proof, not anecdotal evidence. Not dippy, vague theories. Not some person's mystical philosophy about the nature of healing. Not some hazy musings and ramblings about naturopathy and meridians and shakras and all that. I want science. If "alternative" health treatments and practitioners can't stand up to scientific proof that they work, sell it somewhere else and quit ripping scared, uninformed people off.

Alternative therapies such as herbs have been "tested" for thousands of years, and have passed those tests with flying colors. All the pharmaceuticals put together haven't benefitted from the rigorous testing that herbs have gone through over these millennia before they were put on the market.

I don't understand where and how "the scientific method" has gotten so bastardized that to so many people the ONLY "acceptable" data is the double-blind clinical study. That just does't make sense to me when, as I've pointed out, literally thousands of years of beneficial use stands behind herbs AND when "science" gets around to studying those herbs in their precious, deified double-blind studies, they get the same results.

There is a powerful lobby that tries very hard to prevent people from knowing about the efficacy of many alternative healing methodologies. YOU don't hear about the studies on herbs and other treatments that have been done. Neither do doctors. And they especially don't hear about studies in other countries like Germany, Japan, Korea, China, all of which have been leaders in producing the very same "scientific evidence" about more herbs than in the U.S. -- IOW, the very "evidence" you believe is lacking.

Why? It's called "patent medicine" for a reason. If a product is patented, the people who obtained the patent can make money off of it. A LOT of money. If it's a lowly herb, which isn't patentable, hardly any money can be made. Thus, the outragoues outlays of money required to do double-blind studies are worth it when the profits produced will more than offset the "investment," but NOT worth it where herbs are concerned.

Heck I can go get one of the world's most important and valuable (tho not rare) herbs right outside my back door: dandelions. Many others are out there too, free for the picking. The very BEST insect bite treatment I've ever found is a weed that grows with abandon on our property (plantain, Plantago major). The best minor burn treatment I've ever tried, bar NONE, is lavender essential oil, relatively inexpensively available at most healthfood stores, esp. when you only use a drop at a time on the site. Its effect is nothing short of miraculous. One of the best styptics is powdered cayenne pepper (which, as you might imagine, smarts but only very briefly and then the pain of the cut itself dissipates as well, and it also promotes faster healing in my experience). And peppermint tea has it all over alkaseltzer any day of the week.

I could go on. And on.

And while you may turn up your nose in disdain about "hazy musings and ramblings," such "ramblings" are extremely important, providing the theoreticala and philosophical underpinnings of the healing systems they accompany. They are REQUIRED for understanding and properly utilizing those systems (at least for practitioners, incuding home practitioners like myself.)

For example, I've never seen any "system" more elegant, cogent, comprehensive and all-encompassing than Traditional Chinese Medicine, with its meridians and Five Element Theory and so very much more. The ancient Chinese took a VERY different approach to the study of the human body (and indeed all of manifest creation) than the West, but dismissing such a system out of hand, without ANY knowledge of it whatsoever, is the height of ignorance and even ethnocentric superstition, IMO. (So it's a good thing you didn't do that, isn't it? :evilgrin: ) Understanding it, however, even a little, requires a bit of a paradigm shift during its study.

Are there charlatans out there? Inept, incompetent practitioners? Sure. Ineffective products? Mostly by those companies who put profits above people (just as pharmaceuticals do). And many of those charlatans and inept, incompetent practitioners are M.D.s, often protected to the max even after they've been shown totally incompetent by their unions (AMA and state Medical Associations).

But I personally will take most alternative treatments over pharmaceuticals whenever I possibly can. I recently took my first antiobiotic treatment in over 12 years, because I was able to "self-medicate" with herbs and other alternative treatments all these years to ward off and cure all my infections during that decade plus. The drug I ended up taking for the persistent infection did indeed get rid of it, but it also caused a cardiac scare, which ended up costing me and my insurance company several thousand thoroughly unnecessary dollars. AFAIC, probably 99% of most pharmaceuticals violate the Hippocratic Oath: "First do no harm."

Can herbs harm? Only when used improperly (as ephedra has been when used in high doses in diet preparations), or in the rare instances where someone is allergic to an herb. Are they safe? When used properly, yes -- and note that sometimes using them properly means not self-medicating but consulting an herbalist or naturopath, tho most of the herbs available in healthfood stores in capsules are overwhelmingly quite safe. And if you haven't been to CVS, Walgreen, WalMart or even your local grocery store, do take a look at all the little bottles of herbs on the shelves. These are typically those herbs for which science finally got around to putting its imprimatur on what the rest of us have known about these herbs for, well, millennia.

You can have your little "scientific studies." I rather enjoy being well ahead of "science," and keeping my dollars away from pharmaceutical companies and MDs.

[LunaC]

46. Bravo, Eloriel!

How in the hell do the Skeptics think people healed themselves before Western medicine came on the scene? What most people don't understand is that the "alternative" therapies of today were once mainstream until the AMA and pharmaceutical companies stepped into the picture in the early 1900's.

Anyone wanting to know why Western doctors are such big proponents of pushing pills need only investigate the influence of Carnegie and Rockefeller on the first medical schools in the U.S.

And before the Skeptics start jumping up and down about "advances in medicine" saving lives, somethiing as simple as proper HYGIENE has prevented more disease and saved more lives than all the antibiotics in the world.

Why is it that none of the Skeptics have addressed Doctors as the THIRD leading cause of death in the U.S.? What do you think their explanation may be? Obviously, blind faith in a flawed approach to health can kill you....but still they march off to the M.D.'s. Makes NO sense to me unless some folks enjoy playing Russian Roulette with their lives.

[RobinA]

48. Scientific Study

<<I don't understand where and how "the scientific method" has gotten so bastardized that to so many people the ONLY "acceptable" data is the double-blind clinical study.>>

I think it was called The Enlightenment. Happened a couple hundred years ago, started in Europe, spread to America. Gave the boot to religion and various other hocus pocus ways of explaining stuff nobody understood at the time.

[Eloriel]

50. I think you didn't understand my point

Which was how the scientific method of inquiry got so corrupted that it now means ONLY double-blind studies.

Care to try again?

[Dookus]

53. Explain what's wrong with double-blind studies...

if herbs work, why would they NOT work in double-blind tests?

Of course nobody is claiming that the scientific method is equivalent to double-blind tests. Double-blind testing is a tool in the arsenal of science to eliminate biases.

Can you explain why ANY treatment that is efficacious should not be able to demonstrate that efficacy in double-blind tests?

On edit: Also, can you show how herbalism has been passed all tests with flying colors? Is there no longer any cancer in China?

[stickdog]

74. You are ignorant as well. Herbs work just fine in double blind studies.

Have you ever even heard of:

Oregon Grape Root
Pau D'Arco
Cats Claw
Suma
Burdock Root
Neem
Comfrey?

You realize that many, many herbs have proven medical value? That we understand many of the mechanisms that make them medically valuable? That many commercially available medications contain "herbal" components?

Eloriel's point is 100% on target. The reason major drug companies don't spend the money to scientifically PROVE herbs work to your satisfaction is that they lack the financial incentive since they can't get exclusivity rights. Do you think drug companies want us all growing our own PROVEN cures?

[Dookus]

81. You miss the point

The question is NOT whether SOME herbs are efficacious for SOME conditions. Undeniably some are.

The issue is whether HERBALISM, as a full treatment system, is superior to allopathic medicine.

I would venture to say that the vast majority of treatments offered by herbalists have NOT been proven efficacious in double-blind studies.

[stickdog]

97. For some conditions (psoriasis, for one) HERBALISM is way SUPERIOR.

For others, like a crushed hip, herbalism is obviously only complementary.

It's not a competition, Dookus. But how Western of you to put it those terms.

[Dookus]

104. excuse me

*I* did not make the claim that Western science treats only symptoms while Eastern medicine treats the root cause of illness. That is what we're discussing. I'm arguing somebody else's claim about a vast difference between the two modalities.

I had psoriasis, luckily a small patch. Tried everything - herbs, creams, etc. Went to a doc, got a prescription for Dovonex, the patch went away never to return.

[stickdog]

113. What herbs did you try, pray tell?

This should be good ...

[Dookus]

116. So proud that you think you caught me lying?

I tried green tree oil, aloe vera, and primrose.

Didn't work. Dovonex worked.

[stickdog]

123. Aloe can help. It usually won't cure the problem if it's severe.

http://www.healthwell.com/healthnotes/healthnotes.cfm?ContentID=1253002

Nothing is wrong with using whatever works. But many people have gotten as good or better results with herbal remedies.

I'm one. Oregon Grape Root extract in a pure, raw aloe base did the trick. Devonex only cured the symptoms and only if I kept using it everyday.

[Dookus]

134. and I

used various home remedies, over-the-counter creams and recommended herbal supplements for over 6 years. Got Dovonex. The patch was gone with in 2 weeks and has never returned. It's been over 7 years now.

[stickdog]

139. Great for you. By all means, stick with what works.

I'm not trying to sell you anything except a less close minded perspective.

[RobinA]

82. Perhaps I Didn't

What other types of studies are you suggesting have been pushed aside in favor of double-blind studies?

[Nederland]

133. Corruption?

Which was how the scientific method of inquiry got so corrupted that it now means ONLY double-blind studies.

Apparently you don't understand scientific method. The principles of scientific method demand double blind studies for this type of research. Always have, always will. Nothing has become "corrupted"--its always been this way.

[Baltimoreboy]

54. Well, thanks, that's ludicrous

For hundreds or thousands of years, they also bled people.

And who knows how many millions died from those herbal "cures."

And, of course, all of that is meaningless to modern human beings who eat differently and live differently. We need science to analyze what will react with our current body chemistry and current environment -- not old wives tales.

[stickdog]

73. Dude, billions of people use herbs TODAY!!!

And still 100 times more people die from aspirin every year.

Why post about something that you obviously have no knowledge of?

[Dookus]

83. aspirin

comes from willow plants. It's a rather "natural" drug. Yet you say it kills 100 times more people than all herbs combined.

Why isn't aspirin considered herbal? To save time, here's a definition of Herbal Medicine:

1. The study or use of medicinal herbs to prevent and treat diseases and ailments or to promote health and healing.
2. A drug or preparation made from a plant or plants and used for any of such purposes.

[stickdog]

98. Aspirin is SYNTHESIZED from white willow bark.

White willow bark as recommended by herbalists is far less toxic.

So you show your ignorance AGAIN. When will you give up?

The fact of the matter is that common OTC prescription medications kill thousands and thousands of people every year while less than 100 people have died in the past 10 years because of herbs -- almost 100% of whom were self-medicating without the supervision of a trained herbalist.

[Dookus]

105. How many

people died from conditions that could've been treated by medicine but chose herbalism instead?

The question is not whether herbs are safer than most prescription drugs. The question is whether herbalism is MORE EFFICACIOUS for treating disease than modern medicine.

[stickdog]

114. Both questions are important. Why is everything a false dilemma with you?

[Dookus]

117. why keep going off on tangents?

Why not answer the question?

[stickdog]

120. Because it's simpleminded. The question itself demonstrates your

close minded ignorance.

This isn't either/or. It's not a competition. Western medicine aggressively attacks the body. It cuts out and poisons the "bad" parts. In many cases, the body can recover quite well from these attacks, and a healthful balance is often more quickly achieved using these harsh tactics.

Eastern/herbal medicine attempts to nudge the body back into healthful balance. Because of our lifestyle -- stress, coffee, cigs, drugs, alcohol, toxins, high fat/high protein diet, processed foods, refined sugar -- a lot of times this gentle nudging isn't as effective as it otherwise might be.

But BILLIONS of people use herbs to restore a healthful balance to their bodies TO THIS DAY. Every non-anglo culture uses herbs as a primary component of their health care. Ignorantly dismissing all of this cultural knowledge as some sort of gimmicky quackery is the height of Western arrogance.

Jesus Christ, what do you think made Coca-Cola and Wrigley's Gum so damn popular?

[Baltimoreboy]

180. I'll take Western quackery any day

I take drugs for a problem. A friend of mine chose the herbal method and nearly died.

No thanks. That is why we have an FDA after all.

[DrWeird]

107. Acetylsalicylic acid.

It's a "man made drug" , a partial synthesis from a natural product, salicylic acid, which occurs in the bark of willow trees (salix). Whether the drug companies get the salicylic acid from willow trees or from total synthesis, I'm unsure.

But the "man made" acetylsalicylic acid is quite a bit safer than the natural salicylic acid, which causes ulcers of the stomach and can lead to stomach cancer. I mean everybody who's not ignorant knows that.

On edit: Turns out it's a total synthesis. From phenol, a petroleum distillate. Ain't that a bitch.

http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/Chemistry/MOTM/aspirin/aspirin.htm

[stickdog]

115. It can be done either way. It's cheaper to do a total synthesis.

Both white willow and aspirin should be avoided by people with ulcers.

A French pharmacist first isolated salicin from white willow bark in 1829.

And yes, pure salicylic acid is more dangerous to the stomach than acetylsalicylic acid. But white willow is not just pure salicylic acid. It is milder than aspirin, slower acting, longer lasting and it contains synergystic components (like high tannins) that serve as a digestive tonic, offsetting the ill effects of its salicylic acid.

But everybody who's not ignorant knows that, Doc.

[stickdog]

71. You're obviously hysterical, Eloriel. I recommend removing your uterus

before it's too late.

[RobinA]

47. Couldn't Agree More

When a lot of these "natural" remedies are tested, they turn out to be bunk.

Plus, why is St. John's Wort any more "natural" than Prozac? Neither one of them occur in my body, but somehow SJW gets the seal of approval because it grows in a field and Prozac is nasty because it grows in a test tube? My body knows the difference? Or cares? It's all foreign to my brain.

[LunaC]

51. Pharmaceuticals and "rigorously testing"

Here's what the "testing" gets you......

"Another aspect of scientific medicine that the public takes for granted is the testing of new drugs. Unlike
the class of people that take drugs who are ill and need medication, in general, drugs are tested on
individuals who are fairly healthy and not on other medications that can interfere with findings. But when
they are declared “safe” and enter the drug prescription books, they are naturally going to be used by
people on a variety of other medications and who also have a lot of other health problems. Then, a new
Phase of drug testing called Post-Approval comes into play, which is the documentation of side effects
once drugs hit the market. In one very telling report, the General Accounting Office (an agency of the
U.S. Government) "found that of the 198 drugs approved by the FDA between 1976 and 1985... 102
(or 51.5%) had serious post-approval risks... the serious post-approval risks (included) heart failure,
myocardial infarction, anaphylaxis, respiratory depression and arrest, seizures, kidney and liver failure,
severe blood disorders, birth defects and fetal toxicity, and blindness."47

47. GAO/PEMD 90-15 FDA DRUG Review: Postapproval Risks 1976-1985, page 3.

http://www.nutritioninstituteofamerica.net/research/DeathByMedicine/DeathByMedicine1.htm


But, hey, go ahead and pop that pill if you're feeling lucky today!

[LunaC]

45. Typical

You apparently haven't had much experience with Eastern or "alternative" medicine. Being one of the Resident Skeptics in The Meeting Room that pooh-poohs just about everything outside the box of typical mainstream thinking, I'm not surprised.

Eastern medicine believes that an imbalance in the body is the cause of disease and restoring this balance will lead to improved health. Western medicine simply launches an all-out assault on the symptoms.

If you had an infection and were treated by a Western doctor, you'd be given an antiobiotic to kill bad AND good bacteria, throwing your body wildly out of balance. You may end up with yet another problem to deal with as a result. Ask a woman about her experiences with antibiotics and vaginal infections.

If you were treated by an Eastern/alternative practitioner, the focus would be on strengthening your immune system to restore the balance of your body's energy so it would heal itself.

There's a big diffference in philosophy there. Eastern/alternative medicine works WITH the body's Life Force while Western medicine's approach is to launch an all-out assault aginst it.

And I have NO idea where you've gotten your ideas about homeopathy.

If you prefer Western medicine to poison you with pharmaceuticals or mutilate you with surgery, that's your choice. I, however, prefer to be kinder and gentler with my body. We're going to have to agree to disagree since it's too nice a day to get into a pissing match with someone who won't allow for the existence of a myriad of other possibilities beyond their simple understanding.

[Dookus]

52. LOL

OK... if you get tuberculosis, or cancer, or a serious staph infection, or diabetes, or heart disease, go for the herbs.

I'll see a medical doctor.

As for my ideas about homeopathy, can you tell me what's incorrect about what I said? It *IS* based on the notion of "like cures like", or the Law of Similars. What I didn't mention is that the poisons are diluted to the point of non-existence. However, the actual poisons used are those that mimic the symptoms one is attempting to relieve.

You also totally ignored my basic question: How does Eastern medicine solve the "cause" of a disease when it is unaware what the cause of the disease IS?

Again, people who sell that idea are selling something else, too. In your case, herbs and treatment.

The biggest mistake you're making is finding instances of people being hurt by prescription drugs, then extrapolating that to mean that ALL western medicine is harmful. That's a logical error.

If I find somebody who was hurt by herbs, will you accept that all of Eastern medicine is faulty? Probably not... you'd see the logical fallacy there.

[stickdog]

75. Herbs can help a lot with all those conditions.

They can also help PREVENT those conditions.

Don't "waste" your money on herbs if you don't want to. Poison yourself with radiation and chemotherapy. Have your tonsils removed for the hell of it for all I care.

But you are simply completely ignorant about the subject of herbs and Eastern medicine in general. Why are you so proud to broadcast your lack of knowledge?

[Dookus]

85. heheh

coming from you, that's very very funny.

Show me where herbalism is used successfully to treat cancer, and is more effective than western medicine. For treating tuberculosis? Diabetes?

Which herbs, in which doses? And yes, where are the double-blind studies backing it up?

Ya know, if herbalism worked the way you think it does, Western Medicine would never even have arisen - it wouldn't have to.

[LunaC]

92. The joke's on YOU

Cinnamon spice produces healthier blood

Just half a teaspoon of cinnamon a day significantly
reduces blood sugar levels in diabetics, a new study has
found. The effect, which can be produced even by soaking
a cinnamon stick your tea, could also benefit millions of
non-diabetics who have blood sugar problem but are
unaware of it.

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99994413

Seriously, you really need to stop blathering on and on about a subject you know nothing about. It makes you look stupendously foolish.

[Dookus]

106. I'll let more knowledgeable people

than you decide what is blather and what isn't.

So you find an herb that can lower blood sugar, and you consider that a treatment for diabetes?

There's at least one more fool here in this thread.

[LunaC]

158. 1001 diseases - 1000 herbs - 1000 studies

I already told you (several times) the root cause of disease is a body out of balance but you're not paying attention or you're intentionally ignoring it

No matter how much documentation I provide to support herbs as a viable alternative to pharmaceuticals, it wull never be enough for someone married to their prejudices with eyes wide shut. So I'm not going to waste any more of my time playing your game of just arguing for argument's sake. If I wanted a debate with a Repug mindset, I'd go over to Freeperville.

See 'ya!

[Dookus]

161. I'm ignoring it because it's a medeival approach to medicine

it's the old "humour" theory of disease, which has been discredited for centuries.

I find a blind allegiance to medeival thinking sorta freeperish myself.

[stickdog]

126. Dude, what two countries have the most people on Earth?

What type of medicine do they practice?

[Dookus]

132. Do you REALLY

mean to argue that population is an indicator of which nation has the best health care?

The life expectacy for an indian male is 58.5 years. Women eke out an advantage at 59.6 years. Infant mortality is 59.9 deaths per 1000 births.

Compare to the US, where life expectancy exceed 77 years for both sexes and infant mortality is 7 deaths per 1000.

I'm flabbergasted that you would even THINK that sheer numbers of people indicates a superior medical system.

On edit: I found newer stats for India, where the male life expectancy has gone up to 62.8 years. The numbers I used above were 10 years old.

Do you think the increase in life expectancy is due to:

a) better herbs
b) advances in modern medicine

[stickdog]

143. How do you measure the "health" of a bacteria culture?

How do you measure the ecological "health" of any species?

Just step back for a moment and consider that you are suggesting that the ultimate measures of cultural "health" are how long after fertility life is extended and how many less than perfectly healthy infants are "saved" by intervention. I'm not saying that these aren't noble goals in any humanistic ethical system, but I'm am saying that India and China didn't really need any "help" from their Western big brothers to populate to the point of environmental saturation.

[Dookus]

145. oh good gravy

reproduction is EASY. It's KEEPING people alive that's hard.

If you really believe India and China have superior medical systems than the US, there's nothing more to say. You are absolutely incapable of staying on-point.

[stickdog]

152. Once again, this isn't a competition.

I'm not the one being wholly dismissive of any of these schools of medicine. You are.

[LunaC]

91. Irritating Tedium

1) Homeopathy has nothing to do with "POISONS".

2) Let me REPEAT what I said in my earlier post since you obviously glossed right over it: Eastern medicine believes that an imbalance in the body is the cause of disease and restoring this balance will lead to improved health.

3) Where did you get the wild-ass idea that I'm trying to SELL something? You're just being ridiculous in your fantasy assertions.

[Dookus]

108. You are mistaken

many, many homeopathic remedies use substances that are poisonous.

The name "homeopathy" itself means "like suffering".

Belladonna and arsenic are two very old homeopathic remedies. There's even a popular book on the subject called "Poisons that Heal" written by a homeopathist.

I don't know why you feel compelled to deny this, and why you feel you need to insult me when I tell the truth.

[stickdog]

129. How did people make fine wine and beer when they were "unaware" of

of the "causes" of fermentation?

[Dookus]

135. a total nonsequitor

They weren't CLAIMING to understand the chemical process of fermentation. The claim was made that Eastern medicine addresses the UNDERLYING CAUSES of disease.

I question how that can be if one doesn't know the underlying cause.

Now if you want to argue that traditional herbal medicines were hit and miss, trial and error, and some things worked but nobody knew why, I'd agree with you. But that's not the claim that was made.

[stickdog]

141. There are different ways to understand the same thing.

Even Western science isn't set in stone, man.

Consider Newton and Einstein. Did Einstein's work negate Newton's or did it just offer us a fuller way of apprehending the same phenomena?

I'm sure monks had their own "unscientific" ideas for why this or that process made better or worse tasting beer or wine. But isn't the proof in the tasting? And aren't traditional trappist ales still prized to this day?

Just exercise some good old American pragmatism here.

One day, Edison was sitting in his laboratory absent-mindedly rolling a piece of compressed carbon between his fingers. He began carbonizing materials to be used for the filament. He tested the carbonized filaments of every plant imaginable, including baywood, boxwood, hickory, cedar, flax, and bamboo. He even contacted biologists who sent him plant fibers from places in the tropics. Edison acknowledged that the work was tedious and very demanding, especially on his workers helping with the experiments. He always recognized the importance of hard work and determination. "Before I got through," he recalled, "I tested no fewer than 6,000 vegetable growths, and ransacked the world for the most suitable filament material."

Edison decided to try a carbonized cotton thread filament. When voltage was applied to the completed bulb, it began to radiate a soft orange glow. Just about fifteen hours later, the filament finally burned out. Further experimentation produced filaments that could burn longer and longer with each test. By the end of 1880, he had produced a 16-watt bulb that could last for 1500 hours and he began to market his new invention.

Did the fact that Edison didn't understand in modern scientific terms exactly WHY a carbonized cotton thread filament burned brighter and longer make it any less effective?

[stickdog]

70. Is bacteria the root cause of disease?

We don't know as much as we think we know, Dookus.

That's another Western trait.

[Dookus]

86. Is herbalism a root cause of illiteracy?

Microbes are the root cause of MANY diseases, not all. I used it as an example. There are diseases not caused by microbes.

[LunaC]

94. Snarkiness is sooooo unappealing

The root cause of disease is a body out of balance........poor nutrition, unsafe water, too much stress, bad habits (tobacco, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc) all contribute to a weakened state of being. Good health depends on a well-functioning combination of body, mind and spirit.

An educated twelve year old can tell you as much!

[DrWeird]

111. Silly me.

I thought it was viruses and bacteria.

At least that's how I was educated when I was twelve years old.

So much for the germ theory of disease. I guess it's back to unbalanced humors and bleedings.

[LunaC]

159. Did you forget about the immune system already?

If your body was in balance and you had a healthy IMMUNE SYSTEM, exposure to viruses and bacteria wouldn't necessarily make you sick.

[Dookus]

162. OK...

go eat a lot of herbs, then inject yourself with HIV. Tell me how that works for you.

Your ideas are centuries old, and have long been discredited.

[stickdog]

170. Some people who have been exposed to HIV do fine.

How in the world can you explain this mystery?

[Dookus]

175. I posted elsewhere in this thread

but I'll repeat.

But first let me give you some background. I'm gay. I'm HIV negative. I'm also 43 years old and moved to San Francisco in 1984. I was at the heart of the AIDS epidemic, and I was chairman of an AIDS services agency for over five years. I knew many people with AIDS, almost all of them dead.

A few survived. They are HIV positive and yet do not succumb to the disease. In my experience, those few are NOT "in balance". As I said elsewhere, the most prominent example is a very good friend is overweight, smokes too much and drinks too much. He has outlived 4 partners, all of whom were in better condition than he was.

What makes him immune to the effects of the virus? I don't know. But the answer to the disease will be found in people like him, NOT in discovering new herbs.

[LunaC]

181. Did You Know Some HIV-Infected People Never Develop AIDS?

Your wild-ass assumptions are just too much to bear and I feel compelled to break my intended silence.

How do you explain how some people with HIV antibodies never develop AIDS? Do you think it might - just might - have something to do with that "centuries old and long discredited" immune system you're ranting about?

Some HIV-Infected People Don't Develop AIDS

"This discovery applies to only a very small subset of long-term nonprogressors, but it identifies a feature common to the immune systems of these individuals that likely enables them to resist disease," notes Anthony S. Fauci, M.D., director of NIAID. "Although it does not explain all cases of long-term nonprogression, the discovery should provide insight into the mechanisms of immune defense against HIV."

http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/mar2000/niaid15a.htm

While the article focuses on genetic immune system indicators, it also admits that this factor can't account for ALL long-term non-progressors. Nevertheless, it points directly to the IMMUNE SYSTEM as the key factor in preventing disease. This is what I've been saying all along and what you so obstinately attempted to dismiss/discredit without success.

(Post #45: If you were treated by an Eastern/alternative practitioner, the focus would be on strengthening your immune system to restore the balance of your body's energy so it would heal itself.)

Better luck next time.

[Dookus]

112. And I know

YOU would never be snarky.

What is the root cause of tuberculosis? What is the root cause of HIV? What is the root cause of a staph infection? What is the root cause of Hepatitis?

Yes, an educated twelve year old would confirm your theory, but only if educated in the 15th century.

[LunaC]

160. 1000 diseases - 1000 herbs - 1000 studies

I already told you (several times) the root cause of disease is a body out of balance but you're not paying attention or you're intentionally ignoring it

No matter how much documentation I provide to support herbs as a viable alternative to pharmaceuticals, it will never be enough for someone married to their prejudices with eyes wide shut. So I'm not going to waste any more of my time playing your game of just arguing for argument's sake. If I wanted a debate with a Repug mindset, I'd go over to Freeperville.

See 'ya!

[Dookus]

163. you haven't provided ANY documentation!

Just medeival superstitions.

If you fail to recognize the germ theory of disease, you're being willfully blind.

You can call it Republican thinking, but I think allegiance to long-discredited ideas is more Republican than recognizing the accomplishments of the scientific method.

Are you a creationist, too?

[stickdog]

99. Once again, you don't know as much as you think you know.

In fact, you are remarkably ignorant about this entire subject.

Why are you so intent on making this clear to everyone?

[Dookus]

110. Well...

from my persepctive, it is your ignorance being put on display.

Do you deny microbes cause many diseases?

[stickdog]

119. Microbes are indeed correlated with many diseases.

Destroying certain types of microbes can indeed "cure" many diseases.

But as for cause and effect, that's still largely in dispute. It's just not that simple. The human body is an entire ecology of microbes. Taking antibiotics is one extremely aggressive way to alter an unhealthful imbalance in this ecology. But there can be very damaging side effects -- both long and short term, especially if such an aggressive strategy is overused.

There are other, gentler ways to normalize a healthful microbial ecology. That's what herbs do. Many herbs have scientifically demonstrated antibacterial, anti-fungal, antiviral and anti-tumorous properties -- just not as aggressively antibacterial as antibiotics or anti-fungal as fungicides. But note that Western medicine doesn't really provide much help with viral infections.

Western medicine is great at killing "bad" bacteria and yeast (in many cases along with other "good" microbes). Many times, this approach is the most effective in terms of relieving symptoms in the quickest way possible. Herbs are more like using yogurt to cure a yeast infection. They encourage "good" microbes and discourage "bad" microbes, more gently returning the body to a healthful balance.

[DrWeird]

121. Don't forget the demon possession.

Eastern medicine is pretty good for that too, but nothing beats a good old burning.

And you can't forget bad blood.

And chemtrails...

[stickdog]

122. Wow, that was helpful.

Thanks for adding so much to the discussion, Doc.

It's great to find out that you've personally tested the literally thousands of herbs that people have effectively used to restore health for thousands of years and found all medically inert.

Glad you could regale us with your infinite expertise on this subject, Doc.

[DrWeird]

124. You're welcome.

I figure if you're going to discuss 12th century medicine you might as well go the whole ten yards.

[stickdog]

127. What two countries have the most people on Earth?

What kind of medicine do they practice?

[DrWeird]

128. India and China

With an average life expectancy of 64 and 72 years respectively. Fortunately, due to wider access to "western" (i.e. real) medicine, both the life expectancy and out of control birth rates are improving.

[stickdog]

130. Fortunately?

They were populating pretty damn well before we showed up to save the day with our COMPLEMENTARY Western medicine.

Wouldn't you have to agree, Doc?

[DrWeird]

131. No, no...

the birth rate is lowering. Thanks to birth control. Let's see herbs do that.

[stickdog]

137. So that's the best thing about Western medicine? Our lower birth rate?

So a lower birthrate is the ultimate measure of a culture's health care? Now I know why they call you Dr. Weird. Just wait until we give them all cell phones and tight jeans, huh, Doc? Then they'll be so much healthier, right?

Just admit that the fact that Western medicine is the COMPLEMENTARY medicine in the two most populous nations on Earth lends quite a bit of empirical legitimacy to Chinese and Ayurvedic medicine. Then ask yourself what ridiculous biases could have caused you to become so dismissive of subjects you obviously know nothing about.

[DrWeird]

154. Did I say it was the best thing?

It's hard to rank the miracles of modern medicine. I certainly would consider birth control to be up there among the greatest. It's certainly done wonders for women's rights and health. And it sure helps the overpopulation issue. I don't think there are many "traditional" cures for the overpopulation issue, unless you count genocide. But there are other great advances due to modern medicine, like penicillin, or vaccinations. Like I said, it's hard to rank them in importance.

Cell phones in tight jeans? Don't forget the chemtrails.

Traditional chinese medicines? It's interesting that you bring it up. It's actually lead to a few finds in natural product chemistry, which through modern medicinal chemistry has lead to actual drugs. Kind of like willow bark. Other than that, it hasn't done any good except help lead to the near extinction of numerous endangered species.

[stickdog]

157. Oh, the EXPERT speaks. Tell us more about your vast knowledge of

the goods and evils of Chinese medicine.

Please. I'm all ears!

BTW, what Western treatment do you know of that can reverse gray hair?

And what's the traditional Chinese remedy?

[DrWeird]

165. The good news and bad news?

There isn't really much good news besides what I've mentioned. It's mostly just quackery like homeopathy or snake oil. Hey, I don't have a problem with snake oil, as long as you don't have to kill endangered bengal tigers to do it.

What's the traditional western treatment for gray hair? Well, gray hair isn't really a medical condition, so I wouldn't know.

Traditional chinese remedy? I have no idea. Hair dye?

[stickdog]

166. So contraceptives, getting wrinkles, going bald and becoming impotent

are legitimate medical conditions, but going gray isn't? You are so typical. The only reason you don't think of going gray as a medical condition is that Western medicine has no clue how to stop or reverse the process.

Meanwhile, you don't even know what the traditional Chinese remedy is for this condition -- which is only one of the two most important medicinal Chinese herbs along with ginseng -- and yet you truly believe you know enough about what you've just proven yourself to be wholly ignorant of to call it "mostly just quackery"?

Thousands of years of practice in one of the greatest cultures in the history of civilization. The primary form of medicine to this day in the most populous nation on Earth, by far. But you, who hasn't even bothered to learn one iota about it even as a curiosity, are somehow fully qualified to dismiss it as "mostly just quackery."

How quaintly arrogant. How quintessentially Western.

[Dookus]

168. ROTFLMAO...

Preventing gray hair is now equivalent to eliminating smallpox, polio, measles and a horde of other diseases, curing many kinds of cancers, curing tuberculosis and typhus....

Well as long as your hair looks good.


You really are a crack-up. This thread is NOT about whether any herbal remedies are useful for some conditions. It's about whether herbalism is a superior system of treatment than modern medicine.

Now if I were concerned about my (rapidly) graying hair to the exclusion of all else, I'd say you're right. However, when I needed an emergency angioplasty a year and a half ago, I chose to go with western medicine. It saved my life.

on edit: Can you tell me which herbs cure HIV? I've lost way too many friends to that disease. They don't care if their hair is gray - they just want to live.

[stickdog]

173. Can you tell me what cures HIV? Can you tell me why some people can

be exposed to it without developing AIDS?

Once again, this isn't a competition. The discussion started out to be about prescription drugs and whether or not they often cause more problems than they are worth.

Surely, you must agree that in some cases these drugs are over overprescribed and that in some cases herbal/traditional remedies might help cure or relieve these same ailments in a kinder, gentler manner. And, if so, why have you been arguing with me? Because that's the only point I've been making.

[Dookus]

174. As far as I can discern

some people are exposed to HIV and yet have a natural immunity to the deadly effects of the virus. That seems to be true of many microbial diseases: some people don't succumb.

Now the important question is WHY! A very good friend of mine has been HIV positive for almost 25 years, with no indication of AIDS. He smokes to excess, drinks to excess and is 50 pounds overweight. Is he "in balance"? Were the young, healthy people I knew who died from AIDS "out of balance"?

ON EDIT: It seems some people have natural, perhaps genetic, resistances to some diseases. They need to be studied. The eventual cure or vaccine will come from such studies, not from discovering new herbs. (END EDIT)


You're changing the argument in your last paragraph. I have never asserted that some herbal remedies aren't efficacious for some conditions. But you know as well as I that that's not the argument here. The argument is whether herbalism is superior to "western" medicine.

You have posited many times that Indian and Chinese medicine is better, by virtue of the fact that their population is higher. I have rebutted that such a criterion is supremely silly.

Any medical system that denies the germ-theory of disease is automatically out of the running in terms of usefulness. Now, if you want to argue that some traditional remedies are useful, I don't disagree. But you're being disingenuous if you pretend that's what this thread is about.

[stickdog]

176. Please reproduce a single case of me saying traditional medicine is

BETTER than Western medicine.

You have simply misapprehended my words.

[Dookus]

177. I don't think I have

You have made repeated references to China and India as having superior medical systems based on the silly notion that population = medical success. I will leave it to other readers of this thread to determine what you meant.

It was clear to me, however, that you felt herbalism was better than "western" medicine. If the thread weren't so unwieldy now, I'd find some examples. But I think it's disingenuous to say that you were merely advocating herbalism for SOME small set of conditions.

[DrWeird]

169. Curing gray hair. That's some highly advanced society.

I assume you're talking about he shou wou. Some magic elixir that's supposed to cure gray hair, hair loss, old age, wrinkles, impotency, liver ailments, kidney ailments, and is something of an all around elixir of life.

They used to say the same thing about snake oil. And without any clinical trials showing he shou wou's efficacy, it's just as much quakery as snake oil. Or magic crystals. Or exorcisms. Or placebos. It's all the same crap.

You keep calling me ignorant, yet I'm the one arguing from a scientific standpoint, where as you're arguing on the side of mysticism, which false claims aside, hasn't cured an ingrown toe nail. For example, you keep making the obviously bad correlation that total population is an accurate measurement of medical care. And that everybody in China is using "Chinese medicine." Fifty years ago the average life expectancy in China was 35 years old. Now, like I said, it's 72 years old, still a couple years behind "western" societies. And the only reason it's increased is because of modern medicine. Until the last hundred years or so, any where you went the average life expectancy was around thirty five. People were dropping dead over all kinds of diseases (and they were infectios diseases, people weren't dying because they were all "unbalanced back then) even though they had snake oil, and crystals and "traditional chinese medicine."

You can believe in "traditional chinese medicine", and ouija boards, and astrology all you want. But if you want to look at it from a factual basis, it just doesn't work. And modern medicine clearly does.

[stickdog]

171. Wow! You did an internet search! Congratulations!

Yes, of course. Diet and hygiene and technological and agricultural and workers' rights advances have had nothing to do with any increases in life expectancy! Yes, it's all due to the AMA and giant Western drug companies! Please.

Certainly, antibiotics were a great find. Surgery, if 100% necessary, has been a wonderful way to extend lives. Better dentistry has also helped protect against infection. Western medicine has done a lot of good in the last 100 years all over the world.

But why is this some sort of competition to you? Why does everything about every sort of non-Western medicine have to be quackery in order to make you feel superior? It's ugly, it's ludicrous, and it's simply dead wrong.

Show me the double bind studies that showed that Radix Polygonum Multiflorum is medically inert. Please link them right here for me to see. Oh, there aren't any. And you've never taken it yourself. And you don't know anybody who has ever taken it. And you don't even know how to take it. But you DO know that it's all bullshit.

http://www.drugdigest.org/DD/DVH/HerbsReference/0,3928,4110%7CHe+Shou+Wu,00.html

When you exhibit this kind of thinking, you are simply broadcasting your arrogant xenophobic ignorance. You might as well be claiming that Chinese architecture was nothing until Western architects showed them a thing or two. Such commentary is really quite boorish.

[Dookus]

178. No

your response is boorish. Calling someone xenophobic because they reject a medical modality that is unproven is idiotic.

Now tell me... if herbalism is so good - what herbs cure tuberculosis? Be specific. What herbs in what dosages?

[TopesJunkie]

147. Thanks for the cliches. But both of them actually do both types of Tx.

[drdigi420]

22. SSRI drugs such as Prozac and Zoloft are good for one thing:

maintaining addictions to SSRI drugs such as Prozac or Zoloft

Does anyone remember when you simply got the blues, smoked a joint, and got over it?

[Cleita]

30. Or went down to the local saloon, had a couple of beers

and a game of darts or pool, to make you feel better.

[Kanary]

32. Or...... how about FRIENDS, who actually *cared* about you?

*THAT'S* what truly makes a difference in people's lives.

Not covering up problems, not drinking them away, but talking with friends who care and offer support and comfort, rather than criticism and derision.

We've played into the drug companies hands our own selves.

Kanary

[Cleita]

38. As long as our friends bring a sixpack.

:evilgrin:

[Kanary]

40. Then we continue to buy into the same system.

:evilgrin:

[TopesJunkie]

149. Yeah, let's make sure the truly depressed get even more depressed.

Sheesh.

[drdigi420]

138. nah, i gave up hard drugs like booze, nicotine, and cocaine

i just smoke pot now

much MUCH better for you and doesnt turn you into an obnoxious ass

[Dookus]

118. Yes some did

but they're not prescribed for "the blues". They're prescribed for clinical depression. If you think depression is a new phenomenon, you're mistaken.

[drdigi420]

140. no, 'depression' is an excuse for pharmacuetical companies to

hook you on their addictive, dangerous, counter-productive drugs

dont you wonder why they fight SOOO hard to keep ppl from growing their own medicine?

[Dookus]

142. You are ignorant about depression

It existed long before modern pharmaceutical anti-depressants.

[TopesJunkie]

148. Is ignorance bliss?

I really want to know.

[VoteDemocratic2004]

23. My life fell apart when I was on strong prescription drugs

I lost my business, my house to a foreclosure, all of my worldly possessions, my cars, my friends, some of my family and I was a total wreck.

I was loosing my life on strong pain killers and I was on them for over 3 years.

One day it hit me I had to come off of the pain killers and I did it cold turkey and they put me on mild pain killers.

I picked the pieces up in my life and it now goes on except for a detour that screwed me up almost a year ago.

I am doing better now and I am still on minor pain killers and the pain is still there but I will live with it.

It's better then drooling out of the cracks of your mouth and watching your world fall apart around you.

[Cleita]

26. Whenever my husband must go to the doctor, he has to take

a baggie with all his meds so the doctor can evaluate them and their combined effect on him. Where there have been side effects in the past, a different medication has been precribed instead. If your doctor or clinic nurse is on the ball, there shouldn't be any big problems. Some people require regular medications to stay alive. It's not like they can go without.

[VoteDemocratic2004]

27. My Mom use to make a list

She couldn't walk and the surgery that left her legs in bad shape destroyed her pain threshold. She would make up a list of what she needed and they would give it to her. Back then people didn't have drug cards so we paid for everything out of our pockets and her prescriptions would cost us over $400.00 bucks a week and that was years ago.

[DrWeird]

31. Yes. Penicillin was the downfall of humanity.

Nothing good ever came from penicillin.

[stickdog]

76. It's a mold, Doc.

Many Western medicine discoveries have been wonderful.

I don't think anybody disputes that.

[DrWeird]

95. It's also a prescription drug.

Yes, it's a mold. What's your point?

[DrBB]

33. Yes and no: Type I Diabetic's perspective

This is a little oblique to the topic, but what they hey.

So I'm an insulin-dependent (Type I) diabetic. Obviously I'd be dead without the stuff, and it's not a pleasant way to go. That said, though...

Next time you're at the pharmacy counter at your local CVS or whatever, take a look around. You'll find that you are surrounded by displays of diabetic care stuff--myriad blood sugar testers, glucose tablets, what-have-you. It's in many ways a big-Pharma wetdream of a disease. All these consumables--several different kinds of insulin itself, plus lots of options for syringes ("Maximum injection comfort!") and all those test-strips and whatnot, all of which have to be used up and resupplied on a regular basis. The fact that this stuff constitutes a significant portion of the pharmaceutical revenue stream is reflected in how prominently it gets displayed all around the cash register at most pharmacies I've ever been in.

So... imagine someone finds a real cure. Stem cell therapy, whatever. One company does pretty well out of it. Pretty well. But maybe not all that well. How much for a single treatment (or series of treatments) that cures the disease and the patient never returns, versus a whole lifetime's worth of buying all that other stuff? Which do you suppose is more lucrative?

None of this occured to me before, and then I was talking to a friend's wife who is a hospital RN, and out of the blue she just flatly said "Oh, they don't want to cure what you've got. They've absolutely no incentive."

So, I dunno. Not a theory I'm real comfortable with. But on the other hand, I don't expect to see a cure anytime soon either.

[Nikia]

34. Some do

As for good medication, I have been cured by antibiotics of a couple serious infections. The nasal spray that I am taking has helped my sinus inflamation, which I suspect is really caused by my sensitivity to particulate matter in the air at work. Atenenol has helped reduce my blood pressure and anxiety, although I wonder if I will have to take it for the rest of my life where as perhaps I wouldn't have if I had never taken it.
With my insurance, I have to go to a specific clinic (if I don't want to drive a long way and miss a lot of work). They all want to prescribed something right away without doing tests or being certain of a diagnosisis. If you have a panic attack or anxiety, they precribed Xananx on the first appoinment. If you continue to have problems or are a little down, they prescribed SRIs. If you have any allergy symptoms, they prescribed allergy medication. If you have any pain, they perscribe pain medication. If your stomach hurts, they prescribe acid reducers. I really hoped that they could help me for my various health problems, but I've lost my confidence in them. Most of these drugs didn't work for me and made me sicker. I have also been misdiagnosed a couple times, which they won't accept of course until I've tried every medication to treat the problems that it turned out that I didn't really have. For example, after trying every allergy medication over the course of a year, I was finally allowed to see an allergist who tested me and discovered that I really don't have allergies.

[medeak]

35. going through it at present

check out post...husband can't move right side

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=111&topic_id=28717&mesg_id=28717

[otohara]

37. Doesn't It Depend on The RX?

I couldn't function without my meds -

[Bridget Burke]

42. Your health is your responsibility.

Which means paying attention to all that boring sensible-diet, moderate-exercise, no-vodka-for-breakfast stuff. It also means getting the correct tests for your age (ouch--time for another mammogram) & seeking professional help (emergently or not) for certain symptoms.

There are times when a prescription is warranted. Ask questions & learn as much as possible about each one. Are there any safe alternatives? Will you need to continue taking it forever? How will it affect anything else you're taking (or eating or drinking)? Educate yourself & hope you've got a doctor who can answer your questions. Some of those annoying drug ads include statements like: "Inform your doctor if you've had an organ or bone marrow transplant." What kind of scum-bag quack would not take a medical history that includes these rather major details?

"Non-traditional" practitioners have their place, but they can be incompetent, too. And herbs can cause problems--don't just self-prescribe blindly & assume "natural" remedies are harmless. (I read about a lady who became fond of pennyroyal tea as a minty, non-caffeine drink while she was pregnant. She miscarried & then discovered that pennyroyal has a long history as an abortifacient.)

The big problem is that most of us encounter multiple-prescriptions late in life, when our minds might not be up to the challenge.

[Medium Baby Jesus]

43. Way Way off base.

I'd be dead without them (past illness). I prefer being alive so I can read about the evils of western medicine.

:eyes:

[sendero]

56. I could go with "often create more problems"...

... but not "generally".

My wife is a diabetic with renal disease. We've managed to arrest the decline in her kidney function using Renagel and some other pharms, and get her blood count back to normal using procrit.

There are no "alternative therapies" that are going to bring your red blood count back to normal once your kidneys stop producing the necessary hormones.

My wife spends a great deal of time doing medical research. She is not enamored of pharmaceuticals, and has ditched many. For example, the "statin" class of cholesterol lowering drugs causes her (and many other people, and many more people who probably havent't figured it out) muscle problems - cramps, tiredness. Her doctors tried several versions, lower doses, all to no avail. She had to dump them, but found a milder drug of a different class that works almost as well.

The main thing about taking prescription meds is that you should get on the net and understand what they will do and what they are for and what their sides are. If it doesn't seem like a good fit, a good trade-off, don't take the drug. Nobody can make you.

[bemildred]

57. The thesis has some validity.

Each case is different.
Sovereign treatments for acute conditions are very useful.
Management regimens are a different case, but for some people
the only solution.

All drugs have multiple effects.
Most drugs are strong poisons.

I generally prefer old and OTC remedies when they work.

The notion that any doctor is more knowledgable than any
patient about that patients medical needs is ridiculous on its
face.

My own opinion with regard to medical care is that - unless you
have an acute condition - less is better. No quantity of drugs
will fix a lousy lifestyle.

[samplegirl]

58. Ask your Dr. if its right for you.

Not to worry whatever side-affects it causes...the Pharmacudical Companies create something to counteract it.
Why the hell are we living in such a drug induced society?????
Why dont they find more Holistic ways of healing???
Or better yet quit poisoning us to death with everything from
our toothpaste to meat?

[samplegirl]

59. Ask your Dr. if its right for you.

Not to worry whatever side-affects it causes...the Pharmacudical Companies create something to counteract it.
Why the hell are we living in such a drug induced society?????
Why dont they find more Holistic ways of healing???
Or better yet quit poisoning us to death with everything from
our toothpaste to meat?

[samplegirl]

Ask your Dr. if its right for you.

Not to worry whatever side-affects it causes...the Pharmacudical Companies create something to counteract it.
Why the hell are we living in such a drug induced society?????
Why dont they find more Holistic ways of healing???
Or better yet quit poisoning us to death with everything from
our toothpaste to meat?

[samplegirl]

60. Ask your Dr. if its right for you.

Not to worry whatever side-affects it causes...the Pharmacudical Companies create something to counteract it.
Why the hell are we living in such a drug induced society?????
Why dont they find more Holistic ways of healing???
Or better yet quit poisoning us to death with everything from
our toothpaste to meat?

[samplegirl]

61. See what drugs do?????

Dont know how this posted 4 times....I need Xanax

[LSU_Subversive]

64. LOL that was funny!

[stickdog]

77. A Primary Example

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=736176

Isn't that a pisser!

[Jack_DeLeon]

78. IMO...

unless you are getting surgery, most doctors are quacks and cost way too damn much.

[FlaGranny]

87. Your statement that

"most doctors are quacks" got me to thinking. No, I don't believe that most doctors are quacks at all. What I do believe is that most doctors are "pressured" to see too many patients in one day. They get into a "rut." The young ones have hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt for their educations. The older ones have fallen into the "rut" that came from working to paying back their debt. After the debt is paid, then they feel they deserve the perks, the house in the best part of town, the luxury car, the vactions, etc. Human nature.

I have known, in my 60-some years, only a handful of what I consider to be really excellent physicians. I have worked for doctors and hospitals nearly my entire working life. What is an excellent physician? He/she is one who listens to what you have to say about your own body and actually considers what you have to say. He/she does not drop you into a "category", and leave you there, does not dismiss you out of hand (doctor knows best). He/she does NOT prescribe medication unless it is absolutely necessary, does not "try out" (or experiment with) new medications on you unless as a last resort. He is easy to talk to and works with you. He keeps up with continuing education and he takes pharmaceutical company claims with a grain of salt. He never makes you feel like a fool.

Edit: At least once a year, the good physician will give you a complete examination. He will not just give your right upper quadrant a poke, listen to your heart and lungs for three secondss, and take a cursory glance down your throat. That is not a complete physical. and if that is all your doctor EVER does - he's not doing his job.

[truthspeaker]

79. Without prescription drugs I would die of an asthma attack

For me, there is no non-pharmacological substitute for the drugs that keep me alive.

[jeffrey_X]

90. Drugs don't fix any thing...they simply mask the problem. nm

nm

[ProfessorGAC]

93. Any Evidence To That Sweeping Statement?

Didn't think so.

This type of thinking (heavily peppered throughout this thread) is as simple-minded and dangerous as that of the religious right.

I have MS. The drugs for this MASK NOTHING! They don't treat the symptoms in any way, shape, or form. They help to block the mechanism of progression by moderating the systems immune response and minimizing the interferons thought most likely to cause the demyelination.

My pain is constant. I will never regain the sight in my left eye. The assymetric balance is always present. The delay in the response of my right leg doesn't change. Those are the symptoms, and drug does nothing to help that.

Rather, since only about 20% of all people with MS (over 50 years of data) have remissions that last 5 years or more without these blockers, (with a sigma of 1.8%, meaning that there is only a 1 in 18,000 chance that this percentage exceeds 27.2%). Those taking Avonex or Betaseron experience remissions of 5 years or more, 72% of the time. 72%! That's 29 standard deviations above the 50 year mean!

So, drugs that don't mask any symptoms at all, but block the progression by a factor of 3.6 above the mean of the prior 50 years. Hmmmm!

So, i'm just one person, but my own medical condition refutes your statement as a universal truth.

So, you were saying????
The Professor

[ProfessorGAC]

96. I Would Heartily Disagree

From the experience of my family, my wife, and me, with MS, i can tell you that NONE of my direct knowledge indicates a treating of symptoms vs. cause, and nothing to show side-effects worse than the disease.

Sorry, but that a broad statement that is inherently untrue, and doesn't square with the statistics that show longer life expectancies with an upward trend over the last 60 plus years, that still continue in that direction.
The Professor

[TheRedMan]

101. You have opened up a semi-religon sized can of worms here

But I would ask you to consider is this:

A lot of people harp on the side effects of medicine without really thinking about what is being prevented. For instance, people go on and on about the many brutal side effects of chemotherapy, without really balancing out that it is preventing cancer from killing a person. Death, as a primary effect, can counterbalance many side effects, yes?

In this debate, the effectiveness of prescription medications is their own worst enemy. Cold medication that makes you drowsy? Yeah, being drowsy sucks, so does caugh, runny nose, and fever. But when the only thing left is drowsiness, it is easy to be upset by that.

A drug gets to be a prescription drug because it has been shown to have primary effects that outweigh the side effects. The makers TELL you what the side effects are. Go look at herbal, alternative or whatever other kind of non-prescription concoctions are out there. Do these "dietary supplements" tell you what their side effects are? Ephedra killed people, but somehow "death" never made it on the label.

Okay, getting back from the emotion, what you are describing is a problem of perception, not reality. On one hand, you have a group of medications that are indicated to solve ONE problem, and have to identify every other thing that EVER happened in a series of clinical studies. So you get something like "provides temporary relief from allergies, may cause redness in the eyes, drowsiness, insomnia, soreness." So one primary effect that is heavily modified, and a host of side effects. But now you look at a dietary supplement, and they can essentially say what they want, so instead you get, "cures allergies, energizes the body, and cleanses toxins from your system." Which one of those sounds like a better prospect to you? OF course, you have to set aside the scientifically rigorous evidence that one does what it says and give credit to the hunch that the other does do what it says and doesn't do anything it doesn't say, but just looking at the labels, which would you rather have?

[RobinA]

103. Yours Is a Very Nice

way of describing what I less nicely call the spoiled brat effect. People whining because X isn't absolutely perfect, so it must be the work of the devil.

[stickdog]

151. Some of the most commonly used herbs -- like ephedra & St. John's Wort

-- have nasty side effects. Many others are basically placebos.

Like drugs, herbs are best administered with the help of somebody who knows something about them. Reading the packaging of either really isn't enough.

[autorank]

125. GOOD USE FOR PRESCRIPTION DRUGS: NATIONAL SECURITY

I urge everyone in the Washington DC area taking mood stabilizers to go immediately to their bathroom and flush at least half of the bottle down the toilet. Given the fact that these meds show up in the water supply (it's not just Prozac), there is a reasonable chance that Bush-baby might get a solid dose of something that would do us all some good.

[Hell Hath No Fury]

136. "Generally"? No...

Can medications cause cause additional problems/symptoms? Absolutely. Is that generally the case? No. Are we overmedicated as a society? Yes, I think we are in many ways, but sometimes those drugs that cause additional problems are very, very necessary.

There are times I might have died if it were not for medications that caused me additional problems. Same with my Mom. She's taken some meds that have had some unpleasant side effects, but those side effects were nothing compared to her being dead or incapacitated due to disease. I have friends who've had terrible side effects from AIDS meds but when they go off them, their health declines. So their choice is death or shitty side effects.

Additonally, I am a big believer that alternative therapies can be very helpful as preventative treatment and treatment for chronic conditions, but I have no problems saying that there are circumstances when western meds -- even when they have nasty side effects -- are absolutely needed.

[TopesJunkie]

144. Where do you think your relatives would be without those meds?

Alive? In pain? Unable to do anything at all?

Or doing just fine?

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

150. I don't think that is true.

Most women take prescription contraceptive pills in this country. I think birth control pills solve more problems than they create.

[LeftPeopleFinishFirst]

156. Eh

I'm on two prescriptions and they seem to be doing a fine job. I'm better on them then off them....

my dad takes medicine for his heart problems and cholesterol level (he's not overweight, and is a marathon runner, so diet and stuff has nothing to do with it- it's heridity). i'd say he would rather take a prescription than die of high cholesterol.


i don't quite understand your question, i suppose.

[happynewyear]

164. I agree with you

I think drugs are very over prescribed. I really am shocked the way antidepressants are handed out. Many drugs do make you worse. I know this myself.

Ever seen anyone go through 9 months of chemotherapy and die? Sweet stuff that is and costs a bundle. Why give it to a terminal patient. It just drags out the inevitable and yet it can go on and on and on.

One drug often needs to the "requirement" for the next drug due to side-effects, etc.

To me, the pharmaceutical industry is nothing for the most part but a bunch of refined corporate shills. And I too can say this with a great amount of knowledge on this subject, and I too have a very serious illness.

So, there you have it.

:dem: :kick: