• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Nature VS Modern Medicine and weeding out what truly works.

Do you believe in the farmacy trend?

  • I'm a hippy and I'm proud of it. Also, I have proof it works. No aluminum DO for me!

    Votes: 3 7.7%
  • I'm kind of a hippy, but I was brought up that way, and/or I like moral aspects of the trend.

    Votes: 4 10.3%
  • This is a thing? Who's Jenny McCarthy? I mean, I guess both are fine.

    Votes: 4 10.3%
  • Science trumps turnips all day. Beets and apples won't keep you from having eczema hunny, sorry.

    Votes: 24 61.5%
  • I don't really care at all. I can't afford either of them anyways.

    Votes: 4 10.3%

  • Total voters
    39

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
I'm not really having a discussion with your mother and uncle and cousin now am I? I'm talking to this forum. I'm not hostile towards natural medicine, and I use it all the time. I'm hostile towards how easily people accept SOME natural medicine being legit as ALL natural medicine being legit. Which is annoying at best, and actually causing a lot of harm to community health overall.

You aren't reading any of my points at all. I'm saying optimistic things about doctors because they are true. They are NOT true for every doctor, nor every practice.

No one would put as much trust into doctors as a bunch of hippy people are putting into natural medicine. Someone reads a quasi-real-looking article on buzzfeed about how GMOs are bad for you, and bam, suddenly they're bad for you. No research needed, no looking at both sides of the spectrum, let's make farmers and doctors and everyone bad guys for supplying you with NECESSARY food.

I think a lot of these food trends are easy ways out of real objective research and thought. Gluten free? Even if the generous estimates of half the population are true... That means there are many people out there avoiding gluten for no reason at all, spending money on unnecessary 'medicine' in the form of gluten-free food. People decided to avoid dairy, because fuck it, vegans don't like it and say it's bad for you, so let's quit it. I see it a lot, and I've tried some of it and the more I'm talking to people trying it the more I realized what bullshit was being fed to people for no reason. They were quitting it in the name of health, not in the name of what is truly healthy for them



I don't have my dentist making my medical decisions is what I meant. YES they have the license or whatever, but there are also 'doctors' of History, and art, and theater, and I don't go to them when I'm sick. I mean a doctor trained in dealing with illness, and doctors trained in health. Dentists specialize. There's nothing wrong with that, we need that, but they aren't magically geniuses at health and well being just because they became a doctor.



Again, you're illustrating my point entirely. Me posting ANYTHING optimistic about doctors and modern medicine is appalling and alarming and warrants over-reactive comments on my supposed education status, and such and on and on.

Yet when it comes to super alarming, proven issues with natural medicine, it's all dismissively, "Oh, yeah, that vaccine stuff I agree with but still.." The tone itself you're exuding is exactly what I'm calling attention towards.

There are just as many bad, nasty, rotten spots in natural medicine out to make money, sell snake oils, and put band aids on shit as there is modern medicine, and yet people are touting one around as if it's some brilliant movement back into the enlightened stone ages while the other is complete filth and garbage with some nice people who know what they're doing trying to desperately cling to a failing system.

I'm pointing out that for every bad point you make on modern medicine, I can put one on natural medicine, and both of them have good, great, fantastic practitioners and terrible, ugly, money-hungry ones.

I prefer, overall, modern medical practices because I like the concept of washing your hands, sanitation, developing food that everyone can eat because it's proven people live longer when they have food, etc. etc. Those are modern concepts I agree with and support IN general. I don't like the seemingly objective but just as emotionally driven moral-high-horse people touting around natural medicine like it's some new bible of medicine we lost in a cave somewhere and just discovered.


Morals are not medicine. Those are society driven, subjective things. It may be more moral to, for example, eat whole foods vs GMO foods or whatever. I don't know if it is or not, and I'd argue it isn't. But trying to turn that into science that just isn't there doesn't make it more objective. These are things being argued about for a reason--the science isn't there. Vaccines have hundreds of years and science backing it up, tons of research and tons more of modern recent research, and people STILL don't believe that shit works and are scared it'll fuck you up and fear monger anyone that thinks otherwise. I don't expect GMO debates, or many others, to be objective for a very very long time.



Most doctors specialize, and your tone in the poll is glib and actually dismisses things that will probably be soon proven (for example deodorant without aluminum is sponsored by breast cancer research and eating a vegetable based diet does seem to decrease people's risk of certain cancers and heart disease, as well as certain other conditions, in the long run keeping the health care industry from making money off of terminal illness). Yeah you are a bit hostile, grouping all hippies together (what if I said all rednecks from Texas do xyz? ) and dismissing things to a point that seem overly conservative, where as I see merits in both sides, as do my relatives who have similar or even more "training" than you have (you claimed your training had something to do with your beliefs and I was disputing that, as well as your assertion that a dentist wasn't a doctor much earlier, you are grasping at straws).
 

Adam

New member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
161
MBTI Type
DEUS

It's not that simple. As the study concluded:

Given the observational study designs with the inherent possibility of residual confounding and reverse causation phenomena, a cautious interpretation of the results is recommended.

Another thing, from the article you linked -

Every other species weans and then never drinks milk again for the rest of their lives, and because of that they don’t have an enzyme to break down the sugar in milk. But during human evolution, some humans experienced a mutation in the LTC gene, the lactase gene, these mutations allow us to process lactose as adults. With approximately 65- 75 percent percent of humans on the planet unable to properly process it, it is evidence enough that we are not doing what is natural and in accordance with our bodies.

this is a completely ridiculous thing to write. It's estimated that 8% of the world's population have blue eyes - is that also "not natural"? Arjun Walia is an amateur with an agenda and lacking any semblance of critical thought. I suggest you find another conveyor of science on which to base your opinions.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
It's not that simple. As the study concluded:



Another thing, from the article you linked -



this is a completely ridiculous thing to write. It's estimated that 8% of the world's population have blue eyes - is that also "not natural"? Arjun Walia is an amateur with an agenda and lacking any semblance of critical thought. I suggest you find another conveyor of science on which to base your opinions.

There are multiple studies on the effects of milk and their sources include the British Medical Journal and the American Society of Pediatrics as well as the university used in the study, and there have been studies done at Harvard. Take into account as well that 75 percent of the population is much higher than eight percent. I think you are the one lacking critical thought, probably because you don't like to be told everything you thought was right is wrong, that's usually the case with average people, which is why it was such a pain in the ass to get people to quit smoking.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
Health Concerns about Dairy Products | Physicians Committee

There is adequate evidence from multiple sources that are not "hysterical hippies" or "snake oil salesmen" that dairy is not as good as people once imagined. Also when 3/4 of the population is lactose intolerant, it seems quite absurd to make a comparison to a genetic trait which only occurs in eight percent of the population. Interestingly, these studies are being largely conducted on the groups which have the lactose digestive adaptation, and the results still aren't boding well. The problem here seems to be lack of education of people in this thread on current medicine, ironically, not the shrieking of fanatic vegans as kyuuei implied. Just know too that collective evolution is not a vegan zine.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
your tone in the poll is glib and actually dismisses things
...
Yeah you are a bit hostile, grouping all hippies together (what if I said all rednecks from Texas do xyz? )

My tone was meant to be glib and a bit dismissive, because that's how I feel. I think people are putting FAR more stock into natural medicine blindly, and I'm seeing it all the time, and I'm also seeing a lot of dismissal from doctors and modern medicine. I've made my disclaimers in here, I'm not repeating them constantly. So, yeah, it was meant to be a bit sarcastic and bias. I never claimed it was objective.. I'm willing to discuss the topic, and I have obvious opinions on it. If you're offended by those opinions, I'm sorry? I'm not making you change your mind, and I'm not here to convince you that I'm right or anything. It was more meant as an, 'Anyone with me on this? Eh? Yes? Oh okay cool. No? Sure, you can say why I guess. This isn't here for that, but sure why not.'

And I hear Texans xyz all the time.. some of it is definitely true enough to warrant that, some isn't. It's certainly not going to ruin my day if someone tells me I'm a Texan so I'm x.

I definitely made my tone very clear that I was like "I'd like to hear actual evidence and experience from people into natural medicine, but otherwise I'm more looking to see if anyone else has noticed this us vs them trend that I don't approve of.." You're free to make a more objective thread based on evidence if you're wanting something more debate-y.
 

Adam

New member
Joined
Jun 10, 2014
Messages
161
MBTI Type
DEUS
There are multiple studies on the effects of milk and their sources include the British Medical Journal and the American Society of Pediatrics as well as the university used in the study, and there have been studies done at Harvard.

That doesn't matter. I am not questioning the integrity or quality of the research referenced; I am questioning the conclusions you and yours are drawing from it. Unless you are an expert in the subject, you should not try to extrapolate a different result from a paper than what is written in its conclusion:
A higher consumption of milk in women and men is not accompanied by a lower risk of fracture and instead may be associated with a higher rate of death. Consequently, there may be a link between the lactose and galactose content of milk and risk as suggested in our hypothesis, although causality needs be tested using experimental study designs. Our results may question the validity of recommendations to consume high amounts of milk to prevent fragility fractures. The results should, however, be interpreted cautiously given the observational design of our study. The findings merit independent replication before they can be used for dietary recommendations.

Takeaways:
  • Higher milk consumption may not lower risk of bone fracture
  • Higher milk consumption may be associated with higher rate of death
  • Causality remains to be tested
  • Authors advise caution given weakness of their study design
  • Their findings require independent replication to increase certainty

Take into account as well that 75 percent of the population is much higher than eight percent. I think you are the one lacking critical thought, probably because you don't like to be told everything you thought was right is wrong, that's usually the case with average people, which is why it was such a pain in the ass to get people to quit smoking.

You didn't get my point. It's 25% (lactose tolerant) vs. 8% (blue eyes), making blue eyes much more of an "unnatural mutation" (ref. your click bait article) than lactose tolerance because 92% do not share the mutation. Your argument is not sensible.

Instead of listening to men in the middle who distil the scientific results and add their own special ingredients to the mix, why don't you seek out the knowledge at its source by reading the actual papers? You will realize that these matters are rarely as conclusive as you seem to think. From the Swedish paper:

In contrast, intake of cheese and fermented milk products is related to higher high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, less insulin resistance, and a lower risk of myocardial infarction.
 

Thalassa

Permabanned
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
25,183
MBTI Type
ISFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sx
That doesn't matter. I am not questioning the integrity or quality of the research referenced; I am questioning the conclusions you and yours are drawing from it. Unless you are an expert in the subject, you should not try to extrapolate a different result from a paper than what is written in its conclusion:


Takeaways:
  • Higher milk consumption may not lower risk of bone fracture
  • Higher milk consumption may be associated with higher rate of death
  • Causality remains to be tested
  • Authors advise caution given weakness of their study design
  • Their findings require independent replication to increase certainty



You didn't get my point. It's 25% (lactose tolerant) vs. 8% (blue eyes), making blue eyes much more of an "unnatural mutation" (ref. your click bait article) than lactose tolerance because 92% do not share the mutation. Your argument is not sensible.

Instead of listening to men in the middle who distil the scientific results and add their own special ingredients to the mix, why don't you seek out the knowledge at its source by reading the actual papers? You will realize that these matters are rarely as conclusive as you seem to think. From the Swedish paper:

You are really hanging on to that dairy is not natural inference. ..but it's true for most "non whites" which make up a sizable percent of the world's population. Therefore dairy consumption, in fact, is not natural for nearly 3/4 of the world's population. That is actually good advice for people who don't happen to have the digestive adaptation, who are A MINORITY when blanket statements about milk being good for everyone were pushed for twenty years by the dairy board (hilarious to me that kyuuei had no problems with celebrity endorsement when it happens to be something she likes). Read the second link that I posted, the site is entirely run by physicians (over 12,000).

Evolution can't be proven either, but I bet you argue reasonable cause for that. Hey if you want to key drinking milk, that's your business, I am not trying to convert anyone, but the fact remains that you guys are ignoring mounting scientific evidence.
 

small.wonder

So she did.
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
965
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Hmm, well I definitely didn't read the whole thread, but did read the OP.

I blend the holistic and traditional approach, and find that people are following blindly on both sides (usually the case). The truth though is that the majority of blind following (at least here in the US) is of traditional medicine. Average consumers accept prescription drugs like candy, with never a question of A) what's in it or B) why are we not treating the cause of my symptoms. Even outside of a doctor's office, the vast majority of people neglect to read ingredients on anything and everything they ingest or use on their skin (a organ and absorbs chemicals straight into the blood stream).

I do not use aluminum deodorant, or purchase personal care products that contain neuro-toxins, endocrine disrupting chemicals or carcinogens. Yes, these chemicals are still flying under the radar in the US (some of which have been removed from production in Europe and elsewhere). How, you ask? Do you read ingredient labels, or make a practice of knowing what those million character words mean? If not, you are partially responsible. Where do you think Cancer comes from (lol, of course we only talk about the cure, not the cause)? Hormone issues are rampant these days in both genders, and infertility is on the rise. I get wanting to trust what you know, but how can we see this happening and not decide to investigate and make change?

I have a very firm belief (that has yet to be proven wrong by anything I've seen in my life thus far), that messing with or altering God's design (thinking we can make it better) in this world ends only in death and disease.

To the topic of doctors: my main beef there is that my traditional physician looks at me, asks my symptoms, and then treats those symptoms with drugs. While this is sometimes necessary, I would hope more focus on the cause would be had. My alternative medical physician (by contrast) samples blood, saliva (which shows hormone and nutrient levels, among other things) and hair for analysis, identifies imbalances and we go from there. We use that technology for forensics, why do traditional practitioners not use it for health!?!? After analysis, she treats first at the nutritional level, then supplement, holistic treatment and then a drug if necessary. Drugs should be last case scenario. I have solved a myriad of health issues going this route, without drugs.

I don't mean to rant, this is just a pet topic of mine. ;)
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
There has been a study of people who use alternative medicine; the study found that these people are more educated.

Also, the practice of medicine has changed tremendously since the 60s. Dr. Revici had his own lab, lab staff, and he made his own medicines (over 100 of them). I doubt most doctors today understand the chemistry behind the disease and the drugs they prescribe. They merely match symptom to drug and hope it works.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
So, I am going to start by saying that this is going to be a harsh post.

I blend the holistic and traditional approach, and find that people are following blindly on both sides (usually the case). The truth though is that the majority of blind following (at least here in the US) is of traditional medicine. Average consumers accept prescription drugs like candy, with never a question of A) what's in it or B) why are we not treating the cause of my symptoms. Even outside of a doctor's office, the vast majority of people neglect to read ingredients on anything and everything they ingest or use on their skin (a organ and absorbs chemicals straight into the blood stream).

I do not use aluminum deodorant, or purchase personal care products that contain neuro-toxins, endocrine disrupting chemicals or carcinogens. Yes, these chemicals are still flying under the radar in the US (some of which have been removed from production in Europe and elsewhere). How, you ask? Do you read ingredient labels, or make a practice of knowing what those million character words mean? If not, you are partially responsible. Where do you think Cancer comes from (lol, of course we only talk about the cure, not the cause)? Hormone issues are rampant these days in both genders, and infertility is on the rise. I get wanting to trust what you know, but how can we see this happening and not decide to investigate and make change?

While this is more or less fine to take a blend approach to ones health, and I do agree that the majority of the modern world does not play particular close attention to health matters (and I mean all health matters) until a problem shows up, and the fact that there is an overprescribing attitude, the problem is not that severe. As you pointed out below part of the problem with this lies with doctors who are tired and or lazy and just want patients to come in and out. It's one of the professions where you need to be 100% on all the time, and very very few individual are capable of doing this. Only a small portion of physicans are able to do so.

With that said, and based off what you have described in regards to personal care products containing neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors, and carcinogens, I have doubt you actually understand what your speaking of. I don't mean that in a belittling matter either. These are often used as buzzwords within holistic communities, the anti-GMO crowd, and related groups with a minimal science background. I will admit I am picky here as I am a chemist by profession and I like these matter to be unambiguous and clear. Nevertheless it's an area that does require being picky. I have a pretty darn good understanding of the ingriedents used in consumer products, as well as how compounds come to commertial use; if they were truly bad they wouldn't be there. Though some products I would recommend staying away from beyond small amounts when possible. Most of the "toxic! dangerous! cancer!" statements that surround these suspect compounds are based off chemical, medical, or pharmacological studies that get popularized (and horribly skewed the majority of the time) by the media that report single or maybe several new studies linking compounds to a particular medical problem. The vast majority of the time, this is an initial study or first of it's kind and need to be taken with a grain of salt, or at face value. Most however, will wrongly extrapolate from the studies (which happens ALL THE TIME and it drive scientists absolutely ballistic!) and often generate fear. This "laymens extrapolation" is a serious serious problem and is a huge source of misinformation. This really is the source of chemophobia (which is a real term) which has become a problem in the past several decades and is actually hindering scientific progress and education in some ways. The most direct example of this is the anti-vaccine crowd.

As far as cancer goes. Do you honestly think that cancer is that simple? I can assure you, it is not. It is one (if not the) most complex medical issues there is. There is no cure, and the causes are so immensely diverse that we're honestly never going to solve it. Ever. This is the sentiments of many who research in the field (and my research has a direct link to cancer research so I am in contact with these sorts of individuals). As time goes on it's becoming apparent that cancer is an unfortunate side effect of biology and evolution. What we have to do is preform as much research as we can to deal with cancer to increase the odds of survival, cures for ones that can be done, and attack it from all sides. Additionally, research is being done on the cause of cancer, all the time. We actually have quite an amazing understanding of what can cause cancer to take hold. That said I'd imagine you are looking at it from the angle of "what outside influence triggers it". Again, it's not that simple. Biology is not that simple.

To the topic of doctors: my main beef there is that my traditional physician looks at me, asks my symptoms, and then treats those symptoms with drugs. While this is sometimes necessary, I would hope more focus on the cause would be had. My alternative medical physician (by contrast) samples blood, saliva (which shows hormone and nutrient levels, among other things) and hair for analysis, identifies imbalances and we go from there. We use that technology for forensics, why do traditional practitioners not use it for health!?!? After analysis, she treats first at the nutritional level, then supplement, holistic treatment and then a drug if necessary. Drugs should be last case scenario. I have solved a myriad of health issues going this route, without drugs.

I don't mean to rant, this is just a pet topic of mine. ;)

As mentioned above, it's a fair issue to take. If you feel your primary care physician is not doing an adequet job, seek another. It's partly due to insurance reasons, and partly for efficiency, but tests are only ordered when there is evidence and call for it. It becomes unwieldy when huge tests are undertaken all the time. While it's good for the patient to do their own research and communicate with the doctor what the problem might be, and a good doctor will take these to heart when there is call to, at the end of the day most individuals are not trained to make the decisions that a doctor does. Really, I do not like (at all) the demonization alternative health communities and individual impart on modern medicine, and how often they taut their own methods as being superior, when theirs do not have the research, credientials, or facts to support it. It's intellectual dishonesty and can actually have harmful impacts on the world at large (see discussion above in regards to chemophobia). It's great that you have solve health issues using alternative methods. That said, I take this with a grain of salt. I have met many individuals who have claimed to do this saying it fixed allergies, chronic pain, digestive problems, etc. Common ailements that doctors don't seem to have a good answer for (though they actually do). A common theme from all these individuals: they changed their doctors and or began regular exersize, and got a great big ol dose of the placebo effect that alternative medicine that is great at giving. Doctors do quite often tell patients to do this, but it's usually rejected for whatever reason. It's actually hard to say how much what they do in ways of actual alternative medicine (taking supplements, vitamins, etc.) actually helps. In some cases it does, vitamin deficiencies are a real thing. Uncommon, but real. Doctors can and do address this, but they aren't always seen due to the uncommonality of it. Either way, the idea that alternative medicine is better than modern medicine is a very dangerous path to go down. Thankfully it will never go that way.

I have a very firm belief (that has yet to be proven wrong by anything I've seen in my life thus far), that messing with or altering God's design (thinking we can make it better) in this world ends only in death and disease.

This however, is where I draw the line, and I'm not going to be nice about it. Most of the time I'll ignore and leave religion/spirituality in other alone. Mix science with it though? All bets are off. I take severe issue with anyone who tries to inject religion or spirituality into science, medicine, or technology. This is a belief, and nothing more. Period. End of story. You have no evidence, proof, or support for this statement whatsoever. Furthermore, the very idea of this is actually harmful to the world in ways we could very easily measure. Your observations are purely anecdotal and experiential and can not be used as a basis for fact at all. Furthermore, we have been "messing with gods design" (as you put it) since the dawn of humanity. We have been genetically modifying plants for thousands of years. There is nothing special about modern approaches to this (most of which, incidentally, are not much different at all). We have developed chemicals that do not occur in nature that are amazing at curing disease of ailing medical problems that have been around for decades. Every single person has used something that has gone against your claim (you included), so no one would be free of this. I shouldn't even be entertaining your claim as a possibility though, because it's not based in any factual reality whatsoever. Flaunting this sort of belief though is flat out dangerous and harmful to the world. It impedes progress and attempts to undo progress we have as world done to make things better for everyone, on the basis of a personal unfounded belief. It's completely morally reprehensible and can not be respected in any way. If this is at all influencing your desire towards modern medicine and alternative medicine, you seriously need to rethink your stance on this because it's coming from a profoundly illogical source point and is distorting everything it touches.

Evolution can't be proven either, but I bet you argue reasonable cause for that.

Yes, it can, and has been. Evolution happens every day. If it didn't we would not see virus, bacteria, and other microorganisms change over time as their DNA mutates. The theory of evolution on larger organisms is as solid as you can get, and for all intents and purposes, proven. The most common and easy to understand parallel is the theory of gravity. We know it, we observe it, and we can understand it as best as we can even if we don't know every single thing about it. Evolution is a fact. To deny that is a flat denial of science and fact. There is no arguing on that matter.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
If the alternative medicine doesn't have any harmful side-effects, what's the harm? I took 12 to 14 grams of Vitamin C (1 gram/hour) for my cold on the testimony of some people on a Vitamin C forum; it works. Vit C killed the cold on day 1. We're in the flu/cold season right now. I'd recommend that everyone take massive doses of Vitamin C the next time they notice the first symptoms of a cold. Report back.

Frequently just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good for you. Taking Vitamin C itself won't really do much harm.. but there also isn't much in the way of toxicity if too much is taken. Vitamin A, however, sounds super precious and can kill in high doses. (Famous example: Douglas Mawson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia ).

And mixing the two without knowing the mechanics of each is a problem too. Someone taking modern medications and can easily end up in a real crisis from drinking something as seemingly harmless and healthy as grapefruit juice.

Alternative medicine has lots of harmful side effects, and there is a good reason the labels are all very dismissive and "try at your own risk" ish.

Great point and I've considered it, but how many medical conditions are really "cured" using conventional medications? Doctors prescribe statins to treat cholesterol but it doesn't cure the condition. They prescribe a host of hypertension medications to control it but none of them are cures. Some cancers are "cured" but there are many more such as pancreatic cancer which have a very low cure rate. Arthritis isn't cured; eczema isn't cured; psoriasis isn't cured; irregular heartbeats isn't cured; diabetes isn't cured. They really can't cure colds or the flu; they merely seek to reduce the severity of the symptoms.

The thing is, you're very ethnocentric in your lifestyle thinking. Not everyone is like you. Which is good and bad.

The truth is many, and enough to be called many, cases of hypertension are of unknown origins. Cholesterol has some pretty predictable issues, but even then there are plenty of cases of seemingly and by all definitions healthy people that have high cholesterol. My grandmother ate organic home-grown vegetable-based foods with little meat product and little to no dairy most of her life (80 out of 92 years), stayed in shape and worked, and still ended up with osteoporosis, arthritis, eczema, and a slew of other diseases.

It's naive to assume someone's got unhealthy lifestyle habits just because they present with conditions.

...and for some cases, it's useless to try 'curing' it. Why try to cure the cold? There's hundreds of strains.. it doesn't make sense. People don't typically die from it. They're mildly inconvenienced most of the time. So why spend money trying to cure something like that? It's just not necessary to cure the cold. It won't go away--we have vaccines for things and people won't catch them their whole lives and even still the diseases exist. So.. Treat the symptoms and move on--in which case, natural methods and modern medicine methods are pretty much equally valid. It's a practical, economical, and effective solution.

I'm a little surprised you'd bring up curing colds because catching colds and letting the body fight them off is one of the great driving factors in natural immunity in our bodies.. it's an important part of letting the body do what it does best. The body cures the cold better than we would trying to prevent it from happening. It's pretty much ingrained in modern science. Just let it run its course.

For infections, physical injuries, heart attacks and other catastrophic injuries, conventional medicine is the best, but for the chronic conditions....you really can't go wrong with seeking alternative treatments. In fact, I'd say that there are many alternative treatments that are as good and even better than conventional treatments.

It depends on what you call chronic. In the medical field, anything past 6 months is chronic. Seizures, hypertension, cardiac issues, asthma, COPD, etc... these are all chronic conditions. And some of them at least absolutely call for modern interventions.

It all depends on what it is and who the person is.. In the case of my mother, without modern medicine we wouldn't have her. Same with my father. For me, modern medicine would have destroyed my hips if I'd just listened to the first doctor I came across. But it isn't so us vs them, like I said in the OP. Your suggestions are that natural medicine should help more than modern medicine... but diet, exercise, and physical therapy have been big aspects of things doctors frequently prescribe, and evidence and research has emphasized these TLCs time and time again, and these are neither natural nor modern medicine practice.. they're part of a core health emphasis that either draws from.

I have a very firm belief (that has yet to be proven wrong by anything I've seen in my life thus far), that messing with or altering God's design (thinking we can make it better) in this world ends only in death and disease.

I would definitely disagree here. Fighting infant cancers, bone marrow transplants, giving organs to those who need it, replacing blind eyes with eyes that function, and fixing ears so the deaf can hear.. these are all modern techniques that 'alter' natural body designs.. and at least some on that list potentially save lives. I don't know what you consider altering...
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
kyuuei said:
Frequently just because it's natural doesn't mean it's good for you.

Absolutely. I wouldn't recommend eating wild mushrooms unless you know what you're doing. That wasn't my point though. My point is that there are much better ways to treat common chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol that are safer than statins, diuretics, and beta blockers.

And mixing the two without knowing the mechanics of each is a problem too.

This is much more of a problem with pharmaceuticals and many thousands die each year from using pharmaceuticals correctly. Death from pharmaceuticals is the 4th leading cause of death in the US. You would struggle to find a single death from nutritional supplements or vitamins (it does happen, but it's very rare).

While Xanax and similar drugs are less notorious than narcotic painkillers such as OxyContin and Vicodin, they're addictive, widely prescribed and, combined with alcohol, can be just as dangerous. They cause 373,000 overdoses a year, almost as many as the narcotic painkillers. Collectively, the two classes of drugs kill about 70 people a day, according to estimates by the Prescription Monitoring Program Center of Excellence at Brandeis University.

Editorial: Prescription drugs deaths demand attention

kyuuei said:
The truth is many, and enough to be called many, cases of hypertension are of unknown origins.

We do know that many vegetarians don't have hypertension and there are studies showing that diets with a high potassium to sodium ratio don't get hypertension. Go look up some of these studies. What's interesting is that there is a group of vegetarians who eats lots of sodium and they do get hypertension. I'm not sure but I think I already cited the study earlier. Roughly 95% of hypertension is caused by eating too much sodium and not enough potassium.

It's naive to assume someone's got unhealthy lifestyle habits just because they present with conditions.

One can live a healthy lifestyle and still be nutrient deficient (vegetarians have to take Vitamin B12). There are populations that don't get arthritis. Do you know what's special about these folks? They live in soil that's rich in boron.

Why try to cure the cold? There's hundreds of strains.. it doesn't make sense.

Because no one wants to go through multiple colds each year. There's a Japanese study of schoolchildren that show about a 40 to 50% reduction in colds when they take Vitamin d3; there are also studies that show Vitamin C reducing the duration of a cold. I'm not sure how interested you are in scientific research, but these should be very easy to find. In fact, I'd recommend that you prove it to yourself the next time you get a cold. At the first signs of cold symptoms, start taking 1 gram of vitamin c per hour every hour (12 to 14 grams total). That should kill the cold; it did for me.

Seizures, hypertension, cardiac issues, asthma, COPD, etc... these are all chronic conditions. And some of them at least absolutely call for modern interventions.

For a healthy cardiovascular system, take plenty of Vitamins B6 (in foods or in supplements), B12, folic acid, and Vitamin E. I'd be happy to cite some studies, but again....you could easily look these up. I'll get you started:

Serum folate and risk of fatal coronary heart disease.

CONCLUSIONS: These data indicate that low serum folate levels are associated with an increased risk of fatal CHD.

Also, this:

Prevention of myocardial infarction by vitamin B6.

Patients who were given vitamin B6 for carpal tunnel syndrome and other degenerative diseases were found to have 27% of the risk of developing acute cardiac chest pain or myocardial infarction, compared with patients who had not taken vitamin B6. Among elderly patients of the author (JE) expiring at home, the average age at death from myocardial infarction was 8 years later in those who had taken vitamin B6, compared with those who had not taken vitamin B6. The preventive effect of vitamin B6 on progression of coronary heart disease may be related to increased formation of pyridoxal phosphate, the coenzyme that is required for catabolism of the atherogenic amino acid, homocysteine.
 

ColonelGadaafi

New member
Joined
Oct 10, 2008
Messages
773
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
Si
Lactose intolerance doesnt mean milk consumption is unnatural. Only that there are limits to what a person can consume before getting gastrointestinal symptoms. I have lactose intolerance and i could go through a liter of milk before feeling some abdominal discomfort. lots of nomads in asia and africa also drink milk and have lactose intolerance.
 

prplchknz

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 11, 2007
Messages
34,397
MBTI Type
yupp
in the next 30 years or so we're expected reach 9.5 billion, so i say let people believe eating fruit loops will care their cancer less people the better.
 

á´…eparted

passages
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
8,265
Lactose intolerance doesnt mean milk consumption is unnatural. Only that there are limits to what a person can consume before getting gastrointestinal symptoms. I have lactose intolerance and i could go through a liter of milk before feeling some abdominal discomfort. lots of nomads in asia and africa also drink milk and have lactose intolerance.

Easy way to deal with it too. Lactase. You can buy it at a pharmacy or sometimes a supermarket.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
Absolutely. I wouldn't recommend eating wild mushrooms unless you know what you're doing. That wasn't my point though. My point is that there are much better ways to treat common chronic conditions like type 2 diabetes, hypertension and high cholesterol that are safer than statins, diuretics, and beta blockers.

I think you're assuming that natural methods are instant in their results--and that's modern pharm that does that. If you already eat healthy, and use herbal remedies in your life, and you still have hypertension, what then? Chamomile tea is great, but it doesn't always fix things. Nothing herbal remedy wise will come right out and say, "Yes, this WILL treat your hypertension." There is a reason only modern pharm does that. Someone with hypertension could seriously die if not treated. Now, do doctors re-evaluate how much of the drugs they need later down the road? Absolutely. People can change their lifestyles to healthier ones, and gain the ability to step down off of sugar pills and such. They can work hand in hand. But typically, people won't change unless they feel a serious threat towards their health. It's been both good and bad that we can extend people's health with modern pharm, but also a bit "oh, just take this and you'll be fine" myth that doctors definitely did not create.. society created it the same way they created credit and the credit game. "Oh, look, this is instant and satisfying and I feel great on this med. Now where's that fried chicken cake?"

But even with that myth in place... there are many people that would have had heart attacks and episodes that could cause strokes and death without the use of modern pharmacology long before their healthy interventions kicked in. That's why modern pharm and well-known methods like diet and exercise work hand in hand. You can rest easy knowing your condition is being treated--but you'll have to change your lifestyle to have a chance to be free of it.

This is much more of a problem with pharmaceuticals and many thousands die each year from using pharmaceuticals correctly. Death from pharmaceuticals is the 4th leading cause of death in the US. You would struggle to find a single death from nutritional supplements or vitamins (it does happen, but it's very rare).

That's also because nutritional supplements aren't designed to cure or treat anything. They say it right on the label. Less risk, less potential reward. With modern pharm it's a give and take thing. Do you want to die now from a disease? Or from liver failure later on from taking meds? are you okay with a risk for permanent damage to your thyroid and a lower immune system in exchange for the ability to not die from a rare condition? Most people say yes to those things. So yeah, if you want to look at it that way, sure, pharm causes a lot of death. But I think you'll find your statistic misleading in that Healthy people are not dying typically from modern medicine either. That's also quite rare. Usually it's people dying who would have died either way from the condition being treated. Either they tried something new and it failed, or the disease ran its course.

Using pain killers and drugs for recreational things is not the 4th leading killer in the US or anything. I'm not sure where you got your statistics. Unintentional injuries (aka motor vehicle accidents), cardiac disease, cancer, stroke.. these are leading causes of death in the US.
FastStats - Leading Causes of Death

Taking joy rides on pain killers doesn't even begin to match those things on the stats. Not even in the top 10. and Alcohol is NOT a modern medicine. At all. It's not a modern anything. So I don't know why you'd include that in there.

Because no one wants to go through multiple colds each year.

I take Vitamin C each time I get a cold. It isn't to CURE the cold--it's to relieve the symptoms and just give my body some vitamins it's hopefully burning up with my metabolism fighting the cold. It has nothing to do with curing colds. And not everyone wants to eat vegetables everyday, but I'll go ahead and say, "tough shit", I don't care how natural you are you'll end up with colds in your life time even if your mom is a super hippy. Because your body needs it. If you're healthy enough for it, you need to get sick and fight it off. It's an important part of the process.

Research is scattered, but most I've seen read like this one: Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold. - PubMed - NCBI I used your same resource because, hey, you seem to like using that one to patronize me.

Long term daily supplementation with vitamin C in large doses daily does not appear to prevent colds. There appears to be a modest benefit in reducing duration of cold symptoms from ingestion of relatively high doses of vitamin C. The relation of dose to therapeutic benefit needs further exploration.

I've had to do a lot of projects on shit like this, and it's all the same. "Maybe? But probably not. It's not harmful though! So you can try it and see if you're one of the percentages that get a 30% reduction!" Is basically the science consensus. Eat an orange or drink your orange juice daily because it's good for you anyways and maybe it helps.

But your vitamin C does NOT kill a cold. Your immune system does.

And everyone's different. To me, should I take massive doses of vitamin C on a daily basis and waste a ton of money on something that won't even stop and doesn't even come relatively close to truly shortening a cold? Like I take 1 gram of vitamin C a day for the rest of my life, and hopefully lose 6 hours on a cold that comes across once a year or so? No thank you. Seems like a total waste of money, time, and effort. My body won't use that whole gram, so why bother? Maybe that's super important for you and you just HATE colds and feel comforted by it. There's nothing wrong with that. But it's logical and valid to say what I just said. Many people feel that way about many health issues.



Your tone is dismissive and invalidating to many real conditions and diseases out there. Your ideas don't account for many cases where healthy, athletic individuals suffer from these same conditions (though I'm well aware that typically it is the unhealthy lifestyle prone to it) and they're dismissive and absolute and very black and white in their ideology, dangerously religious sounding in nature. "Just take vitamin C! You don't need medicine! Never you mind typically doctors don't typically prescribe medicine for a cold because there isn't any that exists for it really besides symptom relief, modern pharm will kill you! Everything will be fine with Vitamin C though!" "Oh, hypertension?! Let me waive my magic folate wand and you'll be cured of it! This scientific study that I've decided not to dismiss says so!" You're using the same principles from the other side as the ones you're complaining about.

Medicine, natural or not, doesn't really work like that. Everything is highly individualized. And modern medicine and natural therapies need to work together.
 

Tellenbach

in dreamland
Joined
Oct 27, 2013
Messages
6,088
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w5
kyuuei said:
I think you're assuming that natural methods are instant in their results--and that's modern pharm that does that. If you already eat healthy, and use herbal remedies in your life, and you still have hypertension, what then?

I don't assume that. I strive for minimal assumptions and base my beliefs on empirical evidence. Did you know that in a 20 year period (1972 to 1992), Finland reduced deaths from strokes and heart attacks by 60% by simply replacing salt with a salt substitute (consisting of sodium, potassium, and magnesium)? I'm not going to cite it since you find citations patronizing :D

Research is scattered, but most I've seen read like this one: Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold. - PubMed - NCBI I used your same resource because, hey, you seem to like using that one to patronize me.

Did you read through the abstract? They used 1 gram/day. One gram isn't going to do anything. You need 10 plus grams. You'll find that many if not most Vitamin C studies to be seriously flawed in this respect; the doses used are far lower than anything that Linus Pauling and others used.

To me, should I take massive doses of vitamin C on a daily basis and waste a ton of money on something that won't even stop and doesn't even come relatively close to truly shortening a cold?

Take the massive doses when you do catch a cold. How much are you taking for the cold? I said to take 1 gram per hour. I'm not sure why you're resistant to even trying out a simple experiment, but it's your choice.

Your tone is dismissive and invalidating to many real conditions and diseases out there.

It's more cynical than dismissive. The more one learns, the more cynical one becomes. I'm currently reading about the persecution of Dr. Burzynski, a cancer doctor, by the FDA in Texas. I'm looking at the results of the clinical studies and wondering why others aren't exploring his method.

The Dr. Who Drank Infectious Broth, Gave Himself an Ulcer, and Solved a Medical Mystery

This article covers the struggles by an Australian doctor to get the medical establishment to consider his theory on the cause of ulcers.

"Oh, hypertension?! Let me waive my magic folate wand and you'll be cured of it! This scientific study that I've decided not to dismiss says so!" You're using the same principles from the other side as the ones you're complaining about.

I guess you wouldn't be interested in the large 1985 British Medical Research Council study (17,000 patients) that shows no effect on death rates from using hypertension medications.
 

small.wonder

So she did.
Joined
Feb 8, 2013
Messages
965
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I would never approach any topic (even those I am most knowledgeable or skilled in) with a sense of supreme correctness-- a "you are absolutely wrong, and I am absolutely right" frame of mind. Anyone that does so is blinded by pride and unable to see clearly enough to actually find truth, which requires the consideration of all sides. That said, here's what I found worth responding to.

With that said, and based off what you have described in regards to personal care products containing neurotoxins, endocrine disruptors, and carcinogens, I have doubt you actually understand what your speaking of. I don't mean that in a belittling matter either. These are often used as buzzwords within holistic communities, the anti-GMO crowd, and related groups with a minimal science background. I will admit I am picky here as I am a chemist by profession and I like these matter to be unambiguous and clear. Nevertheless it's an area that does require being picky.

There are a ridiculous amount of chemicals in question, I'd be a total idiot to ever claim that I know about even close to all of them-- I don't. All I know about are ingredients that (after research) I realized weren't really what I wanted to expose myself to. Just to mention a few of the grosser and more common, Triclosan, Retinyl palmitate, Oxybenzone, Dibutyl Phthalate. There are, of course many more (of which I'm sure you know all about).

I have a pretty darn good understanding of the ingriedents used in consumer products, as well as how compounds come to commertial use; if they were truly bad they wouldn't be there.

No offense, but that sounds pretty idealistically naive to me. Espescially in a culture that overdoes and adds excess to everything (mostly to make money).

Though some products I would recommend staying away from beyond small amounts when possible. Most of the "toxic! dangerous! cancer!" statements that surround these suspect compounds are based off chemical, medical, or pharmacological studies that get popularized (and horribly skewed the majority of the time) by the media that report single or maybe several new studies linking compounds to a particular medical problem. The vast majority of the time, this is an initial study or first of it's kind and need to be taken with a grain of salt, or at face value. Most however, will wrongly extrapolate from the studies (which happens ALL THE TIME and it drive scientists absolutely ballistic!) and often generate fear. This "laymens extrapolation" is a serious serious problem and is a huge source of misinformation. This really is the source of chemophobia (which is a real term) which has become a problem in the past several decades and is actually hindering scientific progress and education in some ways. The most direct example of this is the anti-vaccine crowd.

Look, even if the risk is small I don't see the point (or intelligence) in blindly using a product which contains substances I don't recognize. Especially when products that contain much simpler ingredients exist, and do the job just as well. :shrug: The truth is that most people don't think twice about what they are using, and that in it'self is a problem.

As far as cancer goes. Do you honestly think that cancer is that simple? I can assure you, it is not. It is one (if not the) most complex medical issues there is. There is no cure, and the causes are so immensely diverse that we're honestly never going to solve it. Ever. This is the sentiments of many who research in the field (and my research has a direct link to cancer research so I am in contact with these sorts of individuals). As time goes on it's becoming apparent that cancer is an unfortunate side effect of biology and evolution. What we have to do is preform as much research as we can to deal with cancer to increase the odds of survival, cures for ones that can be done, and attack it from all sides. Additionally, research is being done on the cause of cancer, all the time. We actually have quite an amazing understanding of what can cause cancer to take hold. That said I'd imagine you are looking at it from the angle of "what outside influence triggers it". Again, it's not that simple. Biology is not that simple.

No, I don't think Cancer is simple at all-- quite the contrary, as its' causes are many. I do know though, that if I can make choices that remove some of those factors from my life, I will.

As mentioned above, it's a fair issue to take. If you feel your primary care physician is not doing an adequet job, seek another. It's partly due to insurance reasons, and partly for efficiency, but tests are only ordered when there is evidence and call for it.

Right, and with most traditional physicians, that's extremely rare. I've talked to people (who had things like heavy metal poisoning and hormone imbalances) who went from doctor to doctor for years, trying to get to the bottom of their symptoms and only ever found answers through holistic medicine-- not because holistic physicians are magic, but because they care about the root of the problem enough to battle with insurance companies (and yes, make less money) to get their patients answers. All of the aforementioned has been my personal experience and my opinion (which I am entitled to).

It's actually hard to say how much what they do in ways of actual alternative medicine (taking supplements, vitamins, etc.) actually helps. In some cases it does, vitamin deficiencies are a real thing. Uncommon, but real. Doctors can and do address this, but they aren't always seen due to the uncommonality of it.

This, I am outright laughing at. Are you not aware of how nutrient-depleted produce has become because of over-fertilized, pesticide laden soil and other modern farming techniques? Nutrient deficiencies are quite common ideed!

And for the record, the anti-vaccine people are (yes) cray. I think they are starting to come around though, we can hope. ;) I do agree with someone who posted earlier though, in that we should be seeking safer vaccines (as there are issues there).
 

Raffaella

bon vivant
Joined
Jan 25, 2014
Messages
945
Lactose intolerance doesnt mean milk consumption is unnatural. Only that there are limits to what a person can consume before getting gastrointestinal symptoms. I have lactose intolerance and i could go through a liter of milk before feeling some abdominal discomfort. lots of nomads in asia and africa also drink milk and have lactose intolerance.

Yeah, I read a statistic in my nutrition class that stated 98% of central asians are lactose intolerant (though with varying degrees). Still boggles my mind. Long term vegans also become lactose intolerant as the lactase enzyme (the enzyme in your small intestine responsible for the digestion of lactose-containing products) is only expressed with exposure to dairy products. In short, use it for lose it.
 
Top