 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2005And another negative herbal trial
I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study which shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental rhinovirus infections (colds). This is yet another trial showing that this popular "alternative" practice is probably useless (as well as causing serious side effects in some users),. The conventions by which alternative medicine evaluates medical treatment (testimonial, practitioner opinion, accepting marketing claims simply because something is called "alternative", word-of-mouth etc) are being proved not to be very good at separating active treatments from the inactive. Of course , doctors discovered that early last century! It is precisely why clinical trials were invented! It is also how sceptics knew in advance that most alt.med claims would prove to be groundless and placebo-based. The problem now is that a huge chunk of medical resources is being diverted into supplying and researching placebo treatments, even by many hospitals and medical schools and insurance companies. That can only occur at the expense of the seriously ill, those with conditions that placebos don't work for (except symptomatically to some extent). Peter Moran >I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study which >shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental rhinovirus [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Peter Moran WOW! How VERY terrible! Peter is so very worried about Echinacea, but he can see NO fraud, NO cover ups, and NO wrong doing when a young volunteering teenager is KILLED, and it is A OK that the doctor remains on staff! Jan considering I have not mentioned mercury poisoning, there will no reason for Rich to follow this post. Unless, of course <GASP> Rich is a cyberstalker *;* The proof is in the pudding:-))))) * My primary intent is to expose her lies about mercury poisoning. If Jan Drew posts 100 times about having mercury poisoning and I only refute it say 30 times then there are 70 out of 100 that go unrefuted. An unsuspecting lurker may read her claim and not read the refutal* Aloha, Rich >>I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study which >>shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental rhinovirus [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > ups, and NO wrong doing when a young volunteering teenager is KILLED, and it > is A OK that the doctor remains on staff! Another troublemaking post. > considering I have not mentioned mercury poisoning, there will > no reason for Rich to follow this post. Unless, of course <GASP> > Rich is a cyberstalker *;* Hmm... that looks like a mention of mercury poisoning to me. Vashti >> considering I have not mentioned mercury poisoning, there will >> no reason for Rich to follow this post. Unless, of course <GASP> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Vashti Hmm, poor Vashti is confused. This isn't under this thread title. Jan > I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study which > shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental rhinovirus [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Peter Moran Most modern drugs have a natural origin. Some can not even be synthesised (yet). Medical researchers do recognise this and have teams of researchers talking to traditional healers in various parts of the world about their use of herbs and plants. Stopping funding on research of herbs and such completely would be nothing short of disastrous. But the scientific method should be used to weed out stuff that doesn't work and it can do so pretty quickly. IMO, the problem is that the alt-med community simply does not accept that something doesn't work, be it a certain herbal remedy, homeopathy, TT or whatever. They just keep on pouring valuable time and funds into stuff that has long been found to be ineffective. Anecdotal evidence, if there is plenty of it, is a good starting point for research. However, if nothing is found, research should move on to better things. That is, IMO, an important difference between alt-med and scientific medicine - the alt-med community keeps on beating dead horses and thus wasting money and time which could have been used to discover something that really works. >> I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study which >> shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental rhinovirus [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > something doesn't work, be it a certain herbal remedy, homeopathy, TT or > whatever. Why is that? Why so insecure that they feel obliged to leap up in defence of everything that is "alternative"? Peter Moran >> I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study which >> shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental rhinovirus [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > and thus wasting money and time which could have been used to discover > something that really works. I address your latter comments: There are supposedly 500,000 (Flora) plants within the earthly system of which some 5,000 have been supposedly investigated. I hardly think that Science has really scratched the surface at this stage? (1%) If one looks at the initial traditional medicines of ancient cultures then Plants (Herbal) stand out as with the animal kingdom and are clearly demonstrated as being the most useful treatment for afflictions in Ancient days. In addition the use of mineral bases are a strong feature but moreso within the animal community. According to some religious teachings, the use of plants as a herbal remedy for treatment of ailments is soundly documented. This is not confined to just the Christian teachings but seems to appear in the majority of teachings. Ancient as that may be. The point that I raise is that: Humanity is still in an evolutionary stage and as such we can expect contradiction till the fundamentals are resolved. The fundamentals being what causes disease and what are the cures. I hardly think that we can condemn alternative or conventional when the answers are not yet known. A fair condemnation maybe that we have not yet understood the fundamentals of disease causes, let alone cures. Could we really try to blame Alternative and Conventional for this dilemma? Rod. >>> I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study >>> which shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > I hardly think that Science has really scratched the surface at this > stage? (1%) That's hardly surprising since scientific medicine as we know it has only been around for a short time. The results however *are* surprising. In about a century scientific medicine has been able to get rid of a large number of ineffective and dangerous treatments, and has come up with treatments and preventions for serious diseases that were untreatable and unpreventable before. I'm thinking anti-biotics and vaccines. Cancer is not always a deathsentence anymore and even AIDS is becoming a managable disease. An achievement that alternative medicine hasn't been able to copy while lots of it has been around for millennia. > If one looks at the initial traditional medicines of ancient cultures > then Plants (Herbal) stand out as with the animal kingdom and are > clearly demonstrated as being the most useful treatment for afflictions > in Ancient days. I'd say 'most used' in stead of 'most useful'. > In addition the use of mineral bases are a strong feature but moreso > within the animal community. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > confined to just the Christian teachings but seems to appear in the > majority of teachings. Ancient as that may be. Yup, herbs sure are and always have been popular. Their efficacy is another matter entirely. > The point that I raise is that: Humanity is still in an evolutionary > stage and as such we can expect contradiction till the fundamentals are > resolved. The fundamentals being what causes disease and what are the > cures. The cause of very many diseases is known, and it's not a problem with your Qi, the wrath of God, an imbalance of humours, earthrays and such. The cure for a lot of them is also known and if not, treatments to keep the disease under control and prolong life and/or improve quality of life are often available. > I hardly think that we can condemn alternative or conventional when the > answers are not yet known. I think we can condemn alternative medicine. You see, alternative medicine has a habit of denying the answers that we do have. Some deny germs cause disease, some keep insisting on the existence of a 'human energy field' even when it's clearly demonstrated there's no such thing, some contradict the known laws of physics and/or chemistry and so on. Some adherents of alternative medicine will happily support notions about disease that contradict each other completely, just read Peter Bowditch's webpage on alternative notions of cancer. They are mutually exclusive, but plenty alt-med folks support all of them and don't see a problem with that. Conventional medicine may not have all the answers but at least it's reality based. > A fair condemnation maybe that we have not yet understood the > fundamentals of disease causes, let alone cures. > > Could we really try to blame Alternative and Conventional for this dilemma? > > Rod. >>> I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study which >>> shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental rhinovirus [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > confined to just the Christian teachings but seems to appear in the > majority of teachings. Ancient as that may be. Ancient cultures used a wide variety of medical practices, not merely herbal preparations. We don't automatically accept the usefulness of animal faeces (even fly specks) used by the Egyptians, rhino horn, the remarkable range of mystical and religious observances, the "King's touch", the talismans and jujus just because the people at the time believed in them. But I have allowed the debt of pharmacology to herbalism and also that useful herbs will continue to emerge. > The point that I raise is that: Humanity is still in an evolutionary stage > and as such we can expect contradiction till the fundamentals are > resolved. The fundamentals being what causes disease and what are the > cures. > I hardly think that we can condemn alternative or conventional when the > answers are not yet known. ???? How so? We know a very great deal about the nature of the causes of most diseases, and molecular biology is about to produce a surge in those understandings. I don't know how you can say the above, unless you are shutting your mind to anything that comes out of conventional medicine, as many alternative supporters do. It is certainly true that alternative medicine has not yet contributed significantly to the understanding of any disease. > A fair condemnation maybe that we have not yet understood the fundamentals > of disease causes, let alone cures. This is waffle. Once you talk about specific conditions there are many that can be cured, many that can be helped, and a few that cannot be cured at present but we are working on it. Some may never be curable because of their very nature, such as some genetic conditions, but knowing they are genetic allows other strategies in dealing with them.. Peter Moran > Could we really try to blame Alternative and Conventional for this > dilemma? > > Rod. > I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study which > shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental rhinovirus > infections (colds). Gotta watch the details in any trial. According to comments on Public Radio tonight, the trial used only 1/3 the amount of echinacea that natural healers recommend. The reason for the 1/3 dose? That's the amount German drug company lobbyists got the German government to write into law as the upper permitted limit, under their laws declaring all nutrients toxic and all natural healing aids banned in effective amounts. Interesting that they insisted on 1/3 doses instead of the full doses use by natural healers. Looks like the test's funders were scared the full doses might prove effective! Goodness, can't allow those kinds of results, what would happen to the shelves full of cold symptom suppressants, and the money colds generate, if people could actually cure some of their colds cheaply? >> I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study which >> shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental rhinovirus [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Radio tonight, the trial used only 1/3 the amount of echinacea that > natural healers recommend. I doubt that is anything other than a post hoc resort. This is also only one of many trials that fail to show an effect. There is no point to such trials at all if the agent is not used exactly as commonaly promoted within alternative medicine. Here is another negative trial -- http://aac.asm.org/cgi/content/full/44/6/1708?view=long&pmid=10817735 > The reason for the 1/3 dose? That's the amount German drug company > lobbyists got the German government to write into law as the upper > permitted limit, under their laws declaring all nutrients toxic and all > natural healing aids banned in effective amounts. I doubt if that is true either. Can you point me to where this is laid down, and I will access the NEJM and check. Peetr Moran > Interesting that they insisted on 1/3 doses instead of the full doses use > by natural healers. Looks like the test's funders were scared the full [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > shelves full of cold symptom suppressants, and the money colds generate, > if people could actually cure some of their colds cheaply? > >> I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study which > >> shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental rhinovirus [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > trials at all if the agent is not used exactly as commonaly promoted within > alternative medicine. However, that is the standard reply of the advocates for any particular alternative therapy when it fails in a controlled trial. That's what happened with the big NIH trial of laetrile -- after finding it ineffective, the laterile advocates were saying that the dose wasn't high enough. Why do they do that? Because you can always pull that rabbit out of a hat to explain away any negative result, no matter how well constructed the trial is. >> I haven't yet seen it but I understand the latest NEJM has a study >> which shows no protective effect of Echinacea on experimental [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Radio tonight, the trial used only 1/3 the amount of echinacea that > natural healers recommend. But then the stuff should have produced even better results. You see, Echinacea is also sold as a homeopathic remedy, and that means the lower the dose, the greater the effect! > The reason for the 1/3 dose? That's the amount German drug company > lobbyists got the German government to write into law as the upper > permitted limit, under their laws declaring all nutrients toxic and all > natural healing aids banned in effective amounts. Have you read what you just wrote: 'declaring ALL nutrients toxic'. Since Germans have a reputation of being good law abiding citizens, I guess we'll see the end of a nation soon. And in case you didn't know it, alternative medicine in Germany is rampant. They have loads of so-called 'Heilpraktiker' who are very popular among the population. I have a hard time believing the German government would pass laws specifically aimed at getting rid of the Heilpraktiker since it would piss of a lot of voters. > Interesting that they insisted on 1/3 doses instead of the full doses > use by natural healers. Looks like the test's funders were scared the > full doses might prove effective! Funny the alternative medicine industry, which is a billion dollar/euro industry, doesn't fund it's own scientific testing then. Weird isn't it. Like: 'Goodness, can't allow proper scientific testing of our remedies. What would happen to the shelves full of alternative remedies, and the money they generate, if people discover that the stuff doesn't actually do anything?' > Goodness, can't allow those kinds of results, what would happen to the > shelves full of cold symptom suppressants, and the money colds generate, > if people could actually cure some of their colds cheaply? The New England Journal of Medicine published a study on Echinacea using 437 people to see if it would prevent a cold. No Drug or Supplement has ever been proven to prevent a cold. By showing Echinacea does not prevent a cold, those in power can say the herb is no better than placebo. The Echinacea was not assayed to prove if it had any medicinal properties. The preparation was made in the lab that tested the herb, even though many herbal companies would have been naively happy to provide all of the Echinacea that would have been needed. "People should not dismiss echinacea as a cold remedy. Blumenthal pointed out that the extract used in the latest study was prepared in the lab and not sold in stores. He also added that the herb might work better if higher doses were used." http://debunkbigpharma.blognation.us/blog/_archives/2005/7/27/1083734.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.