Ayurveda - cure for cancer? [Archive]

View Full Version : Ayurveda - cure for cancer?

bindeweede

19th July 2007, 12:13 PM

http://news.sky.com/skynews/video/videoplayer/0,,31200-1276033,.html

I haven't heard of this stuff. Must do some searches.

bindeweede

19th July 2007, 12:18 PM

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

Hmmmm.

Cuddles

19th July 2007, 01:41 PM

When someone claims to be able to cure cancer there's just one thing you need to ask - which cancer?

Cancer is a general term that describes thousands of different diseases with thousands of different causes. A claim to have cured "cancer" just shows an utter lack of understanding of medicine.

Mongrel

19th July 2007, 04:16 PM

bindeweede

19th July 2007, 04:36 PM

It's just another herbal remedy system, with added toxic metals, with a fancy philosophy and an exotic name.

Bandolier looks at the toxicity of the remedies here (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/band132/b132-6.html) and while it's gotten better there's still not much in the way of regulation for herbal medicine.

Now excuse me while I get my barge pole...

Those very high levels of lead, mercury and arsenic look frightening.

As far as the use of herbs goes, I'm sticking to regular doses of those that go into GIN! Combined with the quinine in the tonic, and the vitimin C in the lemon, the angelica, coriander and whatever have given me excellent health for years.

Mongrel

19th July 2007, 06:54 PM

Those very high levels of lead, mercury and arsenic look frightening.

As far as the use of herbs goes, I'm sticking to regular doses of those that go into GIN! Combined with the quinine in the tonic, and the vitimin C in the lemon, the angelica, coriander and whatever have given me excellent health for years.

Huzzah - and the weather's just right here for a long glass of iced G&T :)

bobdezon

20th July 2007, 12:26 AM

I think youll find that after clinical trials of this system it would be proven as effective as homeopathy, that is to say negliable to non existant.

There is a reason why medicine has advanced to where it is today, its called progress. These ancient systems are ancient for a reason, they didnt progress to match current medicine.

Just because a system has been used for thousands of years it does not equate its a perfect system and does not need to change. That is a fallacy.

bindeweede

21st July 2007, 12:06 AM

Allo Allo

21st July 2007, 11:05 AM

Well, I don't know if its total nonsense - I did a whole year of Ayurveda because the Government (in Africa) wanted "on the ground people" who could work with the local population (mostly Indians from India) in educating for healthier eating. The year was done with proper medical doctors being trained by proper medical doctors - my husband and I were the only non-medical attendees. We were never told it could "cure cancer" except in our current modern idea that if you eat properly, exercise, don't smoke etc etc - you have a lesser chance of developing cancer. And, if you did, you would then need to change your lifestyle to exactly the above which is what a doctor would probably advise you on the NHS.

I understood it as using lifestyle and food to promote health. I think it concurs with modern medicine in saying "you are what you eat" and that what you eat affects how you feel. I you OD on coffee you might end up feeling jittery with palpitations, or if you OD on red meat you might feel anxious or jumpy - that kind of idea.

There were herbal food supplements - some used for specific conditions - can't remember which exactly (I still have all my notes). They didn't seem "dangerous" to me at the time - like popping Vit C.

But the strange (and most difficult) part of the course was learning the four "doshas" which can be read in the pulse. These are not "humours" at all. And they really can be discerned. It is most complicated and a real Ayurvedic Physician has to have an enormous amount of knowledge in proper modern medicine and the principles of Ayurveda. I would only ever use Ayurveda if it was under the guidance of a proper medical doctor.

I do remember being taught that certain ethnic groups are not easily able to digest dairy products and therefore to say "Drinking milk is healthy" is not always the case!

Well I dunno - I've forgotten most of it! I think a lot of stuff you see on Ayurveda is total New Age Crap.

Allo Allo

21st July 2007, 02:55 PM

Correction! :-[ Three doshas and all the permutations....:scared:

Allo Allo

22nd July 2007, 12:01 PM

Admin

22nd July 2007, 02:36 PM

What an absolutely abysmal report from SKY news.

How, and by whom, were the diagnoses of cancer made? It would have been helpful to know whether they really did have cancer before being 'cured'.

If they did have cancer did they have Ayurveda instead of conventional medical treatment or did they have the conventional treatment and then use Ayurveda?

A misdiagnosis, or false diagnosis, could easily lead to a 'miracle cure'; and attributing the cure to alternative medicine after the conventional medicine has done its work is another way that these medical myths propagate.

Now of course some herbs do have medicinal properties, and science is usually very quick to exploit them, but finding a plant that cure all cancers without side effects is just stretching credulity too far - if it looks too good to be true etc.

What bothers me with credulous reports like this one is that it's giving misleading information without consideration of its consequences. The report ran more like an advert for this practitioner than a serious investigation of a claim.

Basically, it's just giving false hope to people.

Cuddles

23rd July 2007, 10:33 AM

I’ll probably be shot down in flames for this comment – but it seems to me that the criticism about “poisons” in herbal remedies of various kinds is a bit rich coming from mainstream medicine whose “cures” are full of toxins with horrible side effects sometimes. But they are accepted because they have had “rigorous” testing! Mmmmm….

How pathetic. This is one of the oldest bits of nonsense from the quacks. "Real medicine has side-effects, therefore ours must all be good because it is natural". Utter crap. Real medicine has real effects. Proper testing sorts out the ones that have beneficial effects that outweigh the detrimental ones, and gets rid of the ones that are too dangerous. Do you magically think that herbal remedies can't be dangerous just because they haven't been tested? Do you realise just how utterly insane that sounds?

Mongrel

23rd July 2007, 02:55 PM

Not forgetting of course that real medicines, which can have unpleasant side-effects, are given by trained and licensed health practitioners and the patients progress carefully monitored. If problems do occur then action can be taken.

Compare that to herbal 'remedies'. You buy them from a shop staffed by unqualified personnel, read the label (maybe) and chew them down without asking the critical questions...

How pure is it?
What are the active ingredients?
Which part of the plant is it?
Is there any guarantee that that it's not just tea-bag sweepings?
If there is something really wrong with me (not just worried well) then why haven't I seen a Doctor?
If something bad happens as a result of taking this remedy who bears responsibility?

Add in intentional contamination with toxic heavy metals and quite frankly you're an idiot for thinking there's anything to Ayurveda beyond placebo and 'Cup of tea and a biscuit' therapy

Allo Allo

23rd July 2007, 10:45 PM

bobdezon

24th July 2007, 01:18 AM

I wasn't trying to promote this nonsense. I just came across the video on SKY. I am amazed that the theory/philosophy has not been scientifically examined.

Yes ofcourse, I just think it prudent to test the veracity of something before we begin promoting it, not that I was asserting you were promoting it.

Mongrel

24th July 2007, 08:48 AM

I have to say that I am sick of people here not READING posts carefully - simply leaping up and writing agressive gobbledegook with no THOUGHT to what the poster has really said, nor carefully weighing up of what YOU post in reply! I am NOT the one who is looking an idiot here - but I know who are....:tongue:

Medicines are full of 'toxins' so that makes the lead and mercury in herbal medicine fine?

There is virtually no modern medicine that doesn't come with side effects, that's why they're handed out by people who have trained in their use and monitored. If a remedy claims to have no side effects then one of two things is happening;
a) You've been given a placebo, whether that's a sugar pill or a capsule full of shredded plant parts.
b) The practitioner is lying.

Some of the components of herbs or Ayurvedic remedies may be of some use but it's up to the practitioners to convince modern medicine that it works with properly controlled, double blind tests.

Cuddles

24th July 2007, 10:27 AM

Allo Allo

24th July 2007, 12:47 PM

We read your posts. They were nonsense. We told you this. Trust me, you really are the one looking like an idiot.
Unfortunately I did not see the sky program mentioned in this thread because I live in the “outback” of UK and we can’t get Sky….

About idiots (of whom I might be another) - we are discussing something which we know little about! The Ayurveda “new age style” is NOT Ayurveda that medical doctors are trained in. The Ayurveda remedies “new age style” is NOT Ayurveda. If you have time to investigate, you find that Ayurveda has already made contributions to mainstream medicine and that many of its remedies have been properly trialled and have come into main stream medicine as “drugs”. The trials continue and the fact that Ayurveda in some countries is actually a requirement of a doctor’s training means that there is a drawing in to “mainsteam” by medical scientists, drug companies and orthodox doctors knowledgeable in Ayurveda. You cannot throw the same stones at it as you can with Homeopathy – certainly not the “placebo” stone.

As for drugs – I was pointing out that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!

If you read trial results of how “effective” some drugs are in “curing” a condition, you will find that it is hardly more than placebo. Yet they are marketed and sold as “effective”. Furthermore long term effects of taking them sometimes only come out years later.

One could further argue that many “herbal” remedies have already passed the “long term” damage test because of the “antiquity” of their usage – this certainly applies to Ayurveda.

The last thing to consider is the idea that removing an active ingredient from a herb or remedy might also remove some other ingredient that might work in tangent with it, making it less damaging or more effective. These are things that are still being studied.

If you think Ayurveda needs “investigation” – it IS being “investigated”, properly and scientifically.

As I said before, I would never use any “new age” Ayurveda unless under the proper care of an orthodox doctor, who has been trained about “side effects”, dosage, and dangers.

Anyway, that’s me done.

Mongrel

24th July 2007, 01:57 PM

. If you have time to investigate, you find that Ayurveda has already made contributions to mainstream medicine and that many of its remedies have been properly trialled and have come into main stream medicine as “drugs”.

Care to point us to some of these trials? And are they reported in a reliable (PUBmed indexed) journal

The trials continue and the fact that Ayurveda in some countries is actually a requirement of a doctor’s training means that there is a drawing in to “mainsteam” by medical scientists, drug companies and orthodox doctors knowledgeable in Ayurveda.

Which countries? I'm going to guess it's the Indian continent with their renowned ::) public health system. Most health professionals over here who offer it alongside proper medicine do so for two major and one minor reasons.
Money
At least they're seeing a professional, if it's something serious they'll be re-routed to proper medicine
It's a way to satisfy the worried well without resorting to 'proper' placebos

As for drugs – I was pointing out that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!

Well Evidence Based Medicine gives me; Epidemiology (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/fatherofepidemiology.html), germ theory, vaccination, scanning and diagnostic techniques undreamt of 50 years ago, Pharmacology, evolved anti-biotics, high survival rates for cancer sufferers- especially childrens' cancer, low infant mortality and (if I can ever give up smoking) I can expect to live past 70. How does that compare to when herbal medicine was the prevalent treatment? Now excuse me, I've got a big rock and a Lexan house ;)

If you read trial results of how “effective” some drugs are in “curing” a condition, you will find that it is hardly more than placebo. Yet they are marketed and sold as “effective”. Furthermore long term effects of taking them sometimes only come out years later
Which ones? The "worst" that I know of are the nicotine antagonists Zyban and Champix, the recidivism rate after a year for those run at 18% and 24% respectively. Hardly a glaring success but much better than the alternatives.

One could further argue that many “herbal” remedies have already passed the “long term” damage test because of the “antiquity” of their usage – this certainly applies to Ayurveda.
Totally agree with the non damaging bit of most herbal remedies but that just means it should be much cheaper to run a few properly controlled trials (http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct/info/whatis#whatis). On your second point traditional Ayurvdic remedies are meant to contain toxins, why should they be shoehorned in?

The last thing to consider is the idea that removing an active ingredient from a herb or remedy might also remove some other ingredient that might work in tangent with it, making it less damaging or more effective. These are things that are still being studied.
Agreed - but why isn't the money coming from the herbal manufacturers and why are they still happy to have dubious production values, no licensing and no regulatory body? If it's proper medicine it should be treated as such

If you think Ayurveda needs “investigation” – it IS being “investigated”, properly and scientifically.
Why the "scare quotes"?
Anyone can say "Nettle tea is good for indigestion! My grannies gran swore by it and the families used it ever since!" It's only in a proper test setting that we can first find out how true that claim is and ONLY then start to check the active ingredients for useful things.

As I said before, I would never use any “new age” Ayurveda unless under the proper care of an orthodox doctor, who has been trained about “side effects”, dosage, and dangers.
And that stops it being sold off the shelf or mail order how? Just because you may never use it without first going to a "practitioner" doesn't mean everyone does.

Cuddles

24th July 2007, 01:58 PM

As for drugs – I was pointing out that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones!

And we were pointing out that we don't live in glass houses. It's a standard lie from the sCAM industry. Repeating it here after we have pointed out that it is wrong and then accusing us of looking like idiots is not going to win you any arguments. The same is true of all the other standard lies you have repeated here, including the appeals to antiquity, ignorance and naturalism. Also, your repeated "use" of scare "quotes" just makes you look actively "dishonest" rather than just repeating "things" you have heard from "others".

Allo Allo

25th July 2007, 10:25 AM

And we were pointing out that we don't live in glass houses. It's a standard lie from the sCAM industry. Repeating it here after we have pointed out that it is wrong and then accusing us of looking like idiots is not going to win you any arguments. The same is true of all the other standard lies you have repeated here, including the appeals to antiquity, ignorance and naturalism. Also, your repeated "use" of scare "quotes" just makes you look actively "dishonest" rather than just repeating "things" you have heard from "others". I have nothing to do with the CAM industry! I am simply an intelligent person trying to find the truth. I seldom simply repeat what others have told me unless I check it out first! Neither do I go about making statements, unless I know I can back them up.

Here is my last post where I defend my lies.

Unfortunately I did not see the sky program mentioned in this thread because I live in the “outback” of UK and we can’t get Sky….This is not a lie – I live in the Yorkshire Dales National Park

About idiots (of whom I might be another) - we are discussing something which we know little about! This is not a lie, but is true – I probably know more than you. Would you like to see my (rather old) certificate for my years training in Ayurveda? What are your qualifications?

The Ayurveda “new age style” is NOT Ayurveda that medical doctors are trained in. The Ayurveda remedies “new age style” is NOT Ayurveda. This is not a lie, but is true – it has been popularised so that now you can buy all sorts of stuff from Boots the Chemist and other outlets.

If you have time to investigate, you find that Ayurveda has already made contributions to mainstream medicine and that many of its remedies have been properly trialled and have come into main stream medicine as “drugs”. This is not a lie, but is true - do some investigation – easy – Pubmed – or the register of current (and past) trials.

The trials continue and the fact that Ayurveda in some countries is actually a requirement of a doctor’s training means that there is a drawing in to “mainsteam” by medical scientists, drug companies and orthodox doctors knowledgeable in Ayurveda. This is not a lie, but is true - do some investigation – easy – Pubmed – or register of current trials in progress.

You cannot throw the same stones at it as you can with Homeopathy – certainly not the “placebo” stone. This is not a lie, but is true - do some investigation – easy – Pubmed – or the register of current trials in progress.

As for drugs – I was pointing out that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones! This is not a lie, but is true – Drug companies produce Drugs that are not safe – for example the recent criticisms of Glaxo's Avandia (which is still prescribed by NHS – my husband uses it) Check it out.

If you read trial results of how “effective” some drugs are in “curing” a condition, you will find that it is hardly more than placebo. Yet they are marketed and sold as “effective”. This is not a lie, but is true as already confirmed by someone else here. Do your own research.

Furthermore long term effects of taking them sometimes only come out years later. This is not a lie, but is true – see Avandia…

One could further argue that many “herbal” remedies have already passed the “long term” damage test because of the “antiquity” of their usage – this certainly applies to Ayurveda. This is not a lie, but is true – Ayurveda is thousands of years old. The use of lead in the remedies can cause anaemia according to a small trial – and is being further investigated.

The last thing to consider is the idea that removing an active ingredient from a herb or remedy might also remove some other ingredient that might work in tangent with it, making it less damaging or more effective. These are things that are still being studied. This is not a lie, but is true – check it out.

If you think Ayurveda needs “investigation” – it IS being “investigated”, properly and scientifically. This is not a lie, but is true - do some investigation – easy – Pubmed – or the register of current trials in progress.

As I said before, I would never use any “new age” Ayurveda unless under the proper care of an orthodox doctor, who has been trained about “side effects”, dosage, and dangers. This is not a lie, but is true – of course I do not take any medication of any kind and use food supplements cautiously. If I am ill (which is seldom) I go to the doctor like everyone else. I would not choose Ayurveda.(I included this personal detail in my post in case anyone following the thread thought I was supporting Ayurveda.)

I can corroborate everything I have said in my posts – but you are the one throwing stones. PROVE that I am lying.

(I never knew parenthesis were called “scare quotes” – thanks – I will not use them so often.) From Wicki - Scare quotes may thus be used to express disagreement with the original speaker's intended meaning without actually establishing grounds for disagreement, or even explicitly acknowledging it. As they essentially constitute an expression of disdain, scare quotes are sometimes called sneer quotes. Scare quotes are generally avoided in serious, impartial writing, such as in encyclopedia articles.

Cuddles

25th July 2007, 11:09 AM

As for drugs – I was pointing out that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones! This is not a lie, but is true – Drug companies produce Drugs that are not safe – for example the recent criticisms of Glaxo's Avandia (which is still prescribed by NHS – my husband uses it) Check it out.

And I was pointing it out that no-one is in glass houses - that really is a lie. Yes, occasionally a side-effect will be minor enough that it gets through testing and is only apparent when millions of people start taking it. This is just a standard fallacy used by the sCAM industry - "real medicine is not always perfect, therefore we must be better". It's utter nonsense, and your repeated use of it after this has been pointed out does not reflect well upon you.

If you read trial results of how “effective” some drugs are in “curing” a condition, you will find that it is hardly more than placebo. Yet they are marketed and sold as “effective”. This is not a lie, but is true as already confirmed by someone else here. Do your own research.

It is not an outright lie, but it is extremely dishonest. What exactly is the "yet" doing there? If you read what that sentence actually says it is "Some drugs are more effective than placebo and are sold as effective". And yet you try to present it as if this is a bad thing.

Furthermore long term effects of taking them sometimes only come out years later. This is not a lie, but is true – see Avandia…

You mean long term effects only occur over a long term? Excuse me while I just have a heart attack and die from not-surprise.

ld further argue that many “herbal” remedies have already passed the “long term” damage test because of the “antiquity” of their usage – this certainly applies to Ayurveda. This is not a lie, but is true – Ayurveda is thousands of years old. The use of lead in the remedies can cause anaemia according to a small trial – and is being further investigated.

One could argue that, but one who did would be lying. Anecdotal evidence from "traditional" use says absolutely nothing about safety, or indeed effectiveness. As I already said, this is a standard lie from the sCAM industry. "Natural" and "traditional" are synonyms for "safe". That is what proper trials are for.

The last thing to consider is the idea that removing an active ingredient from a herb or remedy might also remove some other ingredient that might work in tangent with it, making it less damaging or more effective. These are things that are still being studied. This is not a lie, but is true – check it out.

And this is what modern medicine does, Actual research into how and why an effect happens. Blindly claiming that because real medicines don't just feed you a whole plant that using the whoole plant must be better is complete nonsense.

(I never knew parenthesis were called “scare quotes” – thanks – I will not use them so often.) From Wicki

Parenthesis aren't called scare quotes. Quote marks are called scare quotes when they are used to imply that the word so marked is not the one you think should actually be used. For example:

how “effective” some drugs are in “curing”
You claim not to have known what you were doing here, but quite frankly, I don't believe you. There is no possible reason for having any quote marks in that sentence except for using them as scare quotes. As I said, the more you post in this thread, the less you like a random believer and the more you look actively dishonest.

bindeweede

25th July 2007, 11:13 AM

I came across the video report when I was looking round the Sky Homepage. I believe it is just a short news item rather than an excerpt from a longer programme. I posted the link as I had never heard of Ayurveda, and I thought other people here might find it of interest, although the clip poses more questions than it answers.

I certainly did not intend the clip to cause, or exacerbate any conflict of opinion between established members of this forum.

T.

Admin

25th July 2007, 11:30 AM

I certainly did not intend the clip to cause, or exacerbate any conflict of opinion between established members of this forum.

No worries. It's the nature of forums that things get heated every now and then.

It's a part of their charm I suppose!! ;D

Mongrel

25th July 2007, 11:54 AM

About idiots (of whom I might be another) - we are discussing something which we know little about! This is not a lie, but is true – I probably know more than you. Would you like to see my (rather old) certificate for my years training in Ayurveda? What are your qualifications? You have an worthless bit of paper for an irrelevant discipline, how much medical training have you done? And whilst I have no qualifications in that respect I have a good scepticism and 4 Pharmacists that I can ask at work and access to the staples of pharmacological reference books. (Martindales, Stockleys, BNF, MiMs and the British Pharmacopeia)

The Ayurveda “new age style” is NOT Ayurveda that medical doctors are trained in. The Ayurveda remedies “new age style” is NOT Ayurveda. This is not a lie, but is true – it has been popularised so that now you can buy all sorts of stuff from Boots the Chemist and other outlets.
The 'New-age' stuff is just useless herbal remedies then but the old school remedies relied on adding such things as toxic metals to work and is based on the good old energy flow within the body and a discipline that resembles an expanded humours set.

If you have time to investigate, you find that Ayurveda has already made contributions to mainstream medicine and that many of its remedies have been properly trialled and have come into main stream medicine as “drugs”. This is not a lie, but is true - do some investigation – easy – Pubmed – or the register of current (and past) trials.
If it's contributions are that impressive you should be able to tell us easily enough. And quick perusal of PubMed with Ayurveda as the search topic was hardly compelling; "Therefore, the study was ended early for futility. Reaching a conclusion regarding the efficacy of curcuminoids based on the results of this study is not possible as it was ended early for futility. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17604143&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum), "Hematopoietic toxicity from lead-containing Ayurvedic medications." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17599022&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum). Some individual herbs may have active ingredients that do good but that in no way vindicates
Ayurveda.

The trials continue and the fact that Ayurveda in some countries is actually a requirement of a doctor’s training means that there is a drawing in to “mainsteam” by medical scientists, drug companies and orthodox doctors knowledgeable in Ayurveda. This is not a lie, but is true - do some investigation – easy – Pubmed – or register of current trials in progress.
From the Ayurveda article on Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda):Scientific studies and standards

Critics object to the lack of rigorous scientific studies and clinical trials of many ayurvedic products (although see Research and innovations in Ayurveda for details of the evidence which is available). The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine states that "most clinical trials of Ayurvedic approaches have been small, had problems with research designs, lacked appropriate control groups, or had other issues that affected how meaningful the results were."[15]

In India, scientific research in Ayurveda is largely undertaken by the statutory body of the Central Government, the Central Council for Research in Ayurveda and Siddha (CCRAS), through a national network of research institutes.[16] A large number of non-governmental organisations are also conducting research work on different aspects of Ayurveda[3]. However, "even staunch advocates of Ayurveda like cardiologist Dr. M.S. Valiathan...admit that 'clinical studies that would satisfy the liberal criteria of WHO World Health Organisation have been alarmingly few from India, in spite of patients crowding in Ayurvedic hospitals"'.[15]

You cannot throw the same stones at it as you can with Homeopathy – certainly not the “placebo” stone. This is not a lie, but is true - do some investigation – easy – Pubmed – or the register of current trials in progress.[/FONT]
See above, show us links

As for drugs – I was pointing out that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones! This is not a lie, but is true – Drug companies produce Drugs that are not safe – for example the recent criticisms of Glaxo's Avandia (which is still prescribed by NHS – my husband uses it) Check it out.
Irrelevant, just because A=bad it does not equate to B=Good. Also if you care to check the Specification of Product Characteristics (http://emc.medicines.org.uk/emc/assets/c/html/displaydoc.asp?documentid=3200#CONTRAINDICATIONS) (SPC) you'll see that they list possible interactions and side effects, all of which the Doctor should be looking out for during regular checkups, as opposed to say Black (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5304880.stm)Cohosh (http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/idcplg?IdcService=SS_GET_PAGE&useSecondary=true&ssDocName=CON2024131&ssTargetNodeId=663)

If you read trial results of how “effective” some drugs are in “curing” a condition, you will find that it is hardly more than placebo. Yet they are marketed and sold as “effective”. This is not a lie, but is true as already confirmed by someone else here. Do your own research.
So what do you have to offer as ineffective drugs? Also I feel a little guilty for setting that up, the 24% for Champix is a bloody fantastic number for a stop smoking drug, that's 1 in 4, with no drugs or therapy (willpower alone) runs to 5%-7%, 1 in 20. It increases peoples chances five fold. Presumably you've done your research and have a nice grab bag full of "useless" medicines?

Furthermore long term effects of taking them sometimes only come out years later. This is not a lie, but is true – see Avandia…

One could further argue that many “herbal” remedies have already passed the “long term” damage test because of the “antiquity” of their usage – this certainly applies to Ayurveda. This is not a lie, but is true – Ayurveda is thousands of years old. The use of lead in the remedies can cause anaemia according to a small trial – and is being further investigated.
The American standard for lead poisoning is 10micrograms per 10ml of blood and their National Safety Council states (http://www.nsc.org/library/facts/lead.htm) "However, recent research published in the New England Journal of Medicine provides new evidence that there could well be very harmful effects occurring at even lower levels of exposure, even as low as 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. In other words, science is now telling us that there is in fact no level of lead exposure that can be considered safe."

The last thing to consider is the idea that removing an active ingredient from a herb or remedy might also remove some other ingredient that might work in tangent with it, making it less damaging or more effective. These are things that are still being studied. This is not a lie, but is true – check it out. This was never denied, the pharma companies find investigate why a plant may be able to do something, pull it to pieces (molecularly speaking) then reproduce and refine to give the public something that's consistent and tested

If you think Ayurveda needs “investigation” – it IS being “investigated”, properly and scientifically. This is not a lie, but is true - do some investigation – easy – Pubmed – or the register of current trials in progress.Fantastic..but a) could you link to them and b) Trials mean nothing by themselves, it's got to be a high quality trial and often the results aren't what people want\expect.

As I said before, I would never use any “new age” Ayurveda unless under the proper care of an orthodox doctor, who has been trained about “side effects”, dosage, and dangers. This is not a lie, but is true – of course I do not take any medication of any kind and use food supplements cautiously. If I am ill (which is seldom) I go to the doctor like everyone else. I would not choose Ayurveda.[/FONT](I included this personal detail in my post in case anyone following the thread thought I was supporting Ayurveda.)[/quote] So if Ayurveda is that good why go to the Doctor to be fed "poisonous" drugs?

I can corroborate everything I have said in my posts – but you are the one throwing stones. PROVE that I am lying.I can prove everything in my post, many of my points even have links so you can check for your self :) And I don't see it as throwing stones, more like 'cleaning the outhouse'

Finally a repeat of a statement and repeat of a question, it'd be nice if you could answer :)

Statement: I have no problem with research and sale of herbal medicine but only as long as it's held to the same standards as normal drugs (efficacy, quality, regulation and reporting)

Question
Well Evidence Based Medicine gives me; Epidemiology, germ theory, vaccination, scanning and diagnostic techniques undreamt of 50 years ago, Pharmacology, evolved anti-biotics, high survival rates for cancer sufferers- especially childrens' cancer, low infant mortality and (if I can ever give up smoking) I can expect to live past 70. How does that compare to when herbal medicine was the prevalent treatment?

Allo Allo

25th July 2007, 01:26 PM

To Mongrel, I am not pushing Ayurveda! in reply to your statement: - So if Ayurveda is that good why go to the Doctor to be fed "poisonous" drugs?
The thread is “ Ayurveda – cure for cancer?” and my first post was to explain that I didn’t think this was their claim – only Pop-Ayurveda which should be discounted. And that I didn’t think Ayurveda was TOTAL nonsense bla bla …as we already use some of their concepts in mainstream medicine. But I will check out your links, thanks.

To Cuddles

And I was pointing it out that no-one is in glass houses - that really is a lie. Yes, occasionally a side-effect will be minor enough that it gets through testing and is only apparent when millions of people start taking it.

No, this can come out while the drug is being tested, but is considered less dangerous than a cure.

This is just a standard fallacy used by the sCAM industry - "real medicine is not always perfect, therefore we must be better". It's utter nonsense, and your repeated use of it after this has been pointed out does not reflect well upon you.

I said this? Funny I said this because it’s not anything that I believe….mmm …WHERE did I say this? WHERE have I stated Ayurveda is BETTER? Or even comparable?

Quote:
If you read trial results of how “effective” some drugs are in “curing” a condition, you will find that it is hardly more than placebo. Yet they are marketed and sold as “effective”.

It is not an outright lie, but it is extremely dishonest. What exactly is the "yet" doing there? If you read what that sentence actually says it is "Some drugs are more effective than placebo and are sold as effective". And yet you try to present it as if this is a bad thing.

It IS a bad thing! Yes. Affirmative. They are marketed because the company has spent loads of money on research and there might be nothing else much better on the market so they plug their product as any business would do.

Quote:
Furthermore long term effects of taking them sometimes only come out years later.

You mean long term effects only occur over a long term? Excuse me while I just have a heart attack and die from not-surprise.

Does sound silly I agree.

Quote:
ld further argue that many “herbal” remedies have already passed the “long term” damage test because of the “antiquity” of their usage – this certainly applies to Ayurveda.

One could argue that, but one who did would be lying.

Why?
I don’t understand your use of the word “lying”? Please explain. Wicki - A lie is type of deception in the form of an untruthful statement with the intention to deceive. To lie is to state something one believes to be false with the intention that it be taken for the truth by another.

Anecdotal evidence from "traditional" use says absolutely nothing about safety, or indeed effectiveness. As I already said, this is a standard lie from the sCAM industry. "Natural" and "traditional" are synonyms for "safe". That is what proper trials are for.

I am not talking about any of this – the thread is “ Ayurveda – cure for cancer?” and my first post was to explain that I didn’t think this was their claim – only Pop-Ayuerveda. And I offer no anecdotal evidence - nor have suggested any.

Quote:
The last thing to consider is the idea that removing an active ingredient from a herb or remedy might also remove some other ingredient that might work in tangent with it, making it less damaging or more effective. These are things that are still being studied.

And this is what modern medicine does, Actual research into how and why an effect happens.

Isn’t this what I said?

Blindly claiming that because real medicines don't just feed you a whole plant that using the whoole plant must be better is complete nonsense.

I didn’t do this! WHERE did I do this? I have not blindly claimed this. You are simply reading into my post all the things YOU think.

Parenthesis aren't called scare quotes.

Yes – apologies – I was trying to post and clean my house simultaneously – I realised my error.

how “effective” some drugs are in “curing”
You claim not to have known what you were doing here, but quite frankly, I don't believe you. There is no possible reason for having any quote marks in that sentence except for using them as scare quotes. As I said, the more you post in this thread, the less you like a random believer and the more you look actively dishonest.

What is a random believer for god’s sake? Oh, don't answer, honestly who cares except me? I have found your posts offensive and aggressive - and worse than that just thoughtless Skep-speak. It's not a quality I admire - even in a skeptic.

Oh, FFS, I’ve got to go and tidy my house – for a viewing just now – it’s on the market.

Cuddles

25th July 2007, 03:02 PM

No, this can come out while the drug is being tested, but is considered less dangerous than a cure.

Less dangerous than a cure? What is that supposed to mean?

I said this? Funny I said this because it’s not anything that I believe….mmm …WHERE did I say this? WHERE have I stated Ayurveda is BETTER? Or even comparable?

You were saying that real medicine can't criticise Ayurveda because real medicine sometimes has side-effects. If that's not what you meant, what exactly was all your crap about glass houses?

Quote:
If you read trial results of how “effective” some drugs are in “curing” a condition, you will find that it is hardly more than placebo. Yet they are marketed and sold as “effective”.

It is not an outright lie, but it is extremely dishonest. What exactly is the "yet" doing there? If you read what that sentence actually says it is "Some drugs are more effective than placebo and are sold as effective". And yet you try to present it as if this is a bad thing.

It IS a bad thing! Yes. Affirmative. They are marketed because the company has spent loads of money on research and there might be nothing else much better on the market so they plug their product as any business would do.

Having effective drugs is a bad thing? Are you insane? Seriously, did you even read that paragraph you just wrote. You are actually arguing that drug companies producing drugs that actually have an effect and are better than anything else available is a bad thing. That is unbelievably nuts.

Why?

Because it's not true. As I said, and you have ignored, just because something has a traditional use does not mean that it is safe. Just because lots of people use something does not mean it's safe. Just because something is natural does not mean it's safe. Having had this already pointed out, pretending that just because something has been used for a long time means that it is safe is a lie.

Incidentally, your own post proved you wrong on this point. You clain that something being used "in antiquity" shows it is safe and then go on to claim that the use of lead in an old remedy is dangerous. Foot, meet mouth.

I am not talking about any of this – the thread is “ Ayurveda – cure for cancer?” and my first post was to explain that I didn’t think this was their claim – only Pop-Ayuerveda. And I offer no anecdotal evidence - nor have suggested any.

Sorry, it was supposed to say ""Natural and "traditional" are not synonyms for "safe"".

Yes, you were talking about this. When you claim that traditional remedies are safe because they have been used for a long time that is exactly what you are talking about.

I didn’t do this! WHERE did I do this? I have not blindly claimed this. You are simply reading into my post all the things YOU think.

And I didn't say that you had. Perhaps it is you who is reading things into posts that aren't actually there.

What is a random believer for god’s sake?

A random believer is one who just believes in something and is repeating things they have heard to support their beliefs. As opposed to someone who knows exactly what they are doing and purposely presents false or misleading arguments to support their beliefs. The latter are much less likely to be just a random person who happens to believe in something and more likely to be someone who has a vested interest in those beliefs being true.

Oh, don't answer, honestly who cares except me? I have found your posts offensive and aggressive - and worse than that just thoughtless Skep-speak. It's not a quality I admire - even in a skeptic.

Tough. You make claims about "alternative" medicine, you get called on it. You use dishonest debating tactics, you get called on it. You use scare quotes where there is only one possible reason for using them and then pretend you didn't know what you were doing, you get called on it. You don't like that, unlucky.

Your nonsense about "skep-speak" might fit in in a woo forum, but is nothing more than yet more standard woo crap. Aggresive? I have no problem with that. Offensive? If you find having your beliefs questioned offensive then I can only suggest you are in the wrong place.

Allo Allo

25th July 2007, 03:25 PM

Matt

25th July 2007, 07:57 PM

If it's contributions are that impressive you should be able to tell us easily enough. And quick perusal of PubMed with Ayurveda as the search topic was hardly compelling; "Therefore, the study was ended early for futility. Reaching a conclusion regarding the efficacy of curcuminoids based on the results of this study is not possible as it was ended early for futility. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17604143&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum), "Hematopoietic toxicity from lead-containing Ayurvedic medications." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17599022&ordinalpos=2&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum).

Mongel,

I agree with much of what you're saying but this last is not a good example of applied critical thinking. The claim made was that some ayurveda remdies have been tested in double blind clinical studies and been accepted into mainstream medicine.

Citing examples of ayureda remedies that have been found to be ineffective or even dangerous does not dispute this. It might dispute the claim that ayurveda as a whole is fully vindicated but that was NOT the claim being made. Straw man arguments are unbecoming of a sceptic.

Only if an exhaustive search of all clinical studies turned up no worthwhile remedies would you have disproven the claim. Conversely it would only take one well performed study with a positive result to uphold the claim.

I'm suprosed, given AA's reported training and experience that whe couldn't simply list one as evidence but surely when you did your search you found examples of Ayurvedic medicine performing well in double blind clinical studies. Perhaps even being accepted into the mainstream. Being a sceptic myself. I did the same check's I'd expect you to have done and had no problem finding. We conclude that Kothala Himbutu tea is an effective and safe treatment for type 2 diabetes. (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T8D-4F6D70B-1&_user=10&_coverDate=02%2F28%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=13c14d38c78bdf3d6ab22a49a59ffa71) or
Thus, it can be concluded that Mentat, a polyherbal formulation where all the herbs act in synergistic manner, produces improvement of memory, attention and concentration in children with learning disability. (http://www.himalayahealthcare.com/pdf_files/mentat069.pdf)

However I'm aware that a cultural an financial bias may be present in studies from India where ayurvedic medicine is as accepted as Fan Death is in Korea. Clearly I would be more impressed if I found out the there was a modern medicine in common use in western healthcare that was developed from research into ayurvedic medicine.

Some individual herbs may have active ingredients that do good but that in no way vindicates
Ayurveda.

Quite right, it doesn't. however it does go some way to supporting the claim AA made which was far more couched in the framework of applying modern western clinical trials to ayurvedic methods.

Mongrel

26th July 2007, 12:05 AM

Matt,
I was a little rushed, I was meant to be working ;), so I may not have been as astute as I could have been. Apologies, I wasn't in best form :-[

I've never had a problem with herbs\spices being vindicated in clinical trials, I believe I mentioned it up there somewhere. Individual "This stuff has potentially useful effects", whilst good, in no way validates the whole practice of either herbalism or Ayurveda.

From my understanding of Ayurvedic medicine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayurveda) (and most of what I know is summed up in the Wiki article) it's an mix of Eastern and Greek philosophies, although it may have been the other way - that's just my learning biases, combining Chi\energy flow and humours. It's the same as pushing pins into people looks as though it's works as a mild, local analgesic but it's not acupuncture because it still works on "non-meridian" points.

I accept your point that I could have researched more thoroughly but;
a) Ayurveda is more than individual remedies
b) I get wary\tired of "There's plenty of information out there, just search for it!" rebuttals. If it's that damned easy cut n' paste the bloody link!!

Cuddles

26th July 2007, 10:43 AM

Cuddles, I think you and I live on different planets - we have no common ground for communication - it's not worth the effort for me. I think you trundle out Skep-speak - especially here in these replies to me - which means you're not thinking - just blabbing the same old phrases heard before. And I am ending up defending a whole lot of things I never said.

Also - oh forget it! Couldn't be bothered....

Have a nice day!

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, I will point out, once again, that there is no such thing as "skep-speak". Challenging your beliefs and claims does not mean that I am not thinking or that I am just repeating what others say. If you make claims, you will be challenged about them. If you make extremely silly claims, like saying that drug companies producing effective drugs is a bad thing, you won't just be challenged, you will have it pointed out just how silly it is.

If you don't like that and don't want to have a debate, fine. Just don't pretend it is the fault of those arguing against you.

Allo Allo

26th July 2007, 02:33 PM

I'm sorry you feel that way. However, I will point out, once again, that there is no such thing as "skep-speak". Challenging your beliefs and claims does not mean that I am not thinking or that I am just repeating what others say. If you make claims, you will be challenged about them. If you make extremely silly claims, like saying that drug companies producing effective drugs is a bad thing, you won't just be challenged, you will have it pointed out just how silly it is.

If you don't like that and don't want to have a debate, fine. Just don't pretend it is the fault of those arguing against you.

Mmmmm>:-)

Skep-speak (very common practice on JRF – less common here thank goodness)

“It's a standard lie from the “s”CAM industry”

“This is one of the oldest bits of nonsense from the “quacks”

"real medicine”

“random believer”

""Natural and "traditional" are not synonyms for "safe"".

“Woo”

“Standard woo crap”

The HAS to be some other way to explain these things - English is such a rich language!

Insensitive sentence from Mongrel

"You have an worthless bit of paper for an irrelevant discipline, how much medical training have you done?"

I have done as much as you. I point out how absolutely undiplomatic your statement is – not necessarily to me- but to simply dismiss a discipline that has been in place for 5000 years, that is being used by a good section of the worlds population, (and is NOT Greek for gods sake!) in such a crass way on a public board where many of whose readers probably use Ayurveda and are Asian is not acceptable (for me anyway). I have to say that the arrogance of the west that THEY are the only ones to have contributed to treating the sick, is unfortunate – especially seeing they use surgical techniques learned from India, produce drugs from Ayurvedic remedies, have introduced concepts about health that were being taught thousands of years ago in countries that were more civilised than we were. What a pity we cannot acknowledge how this has assisted our own medical development..

Anyway, do get your good scepticism in gear and 4 Pharmacists that you can ask at work with access to the staples of pharmacological reference books. (Martindales, Stockleys, BNF, MiMs and the British Pharmacopeia) and check out two drugs on the market – Zintevir and Tamoxifen.

Another interesting pastime would be to get a list of the Ayurvedic herbs – and even whole remedies that have been patented by drug companies for further research and testing.

I’ll be dammed if you expect me to post links to things so that I can be “rewarded” (pesky commas) by a skep-attack.

I repeat to Cuddles

“If you read trial results of how “effective” some drugs are in “curing” a condition, you will find that it is hardly more than placebo. Yet they are marketed and sold as “effective”. Translated into interplanetary lingo – this means “It is wrong to sell drugs which are NOT – NOT – NOT really effective.” What’s insane about thinking that??????

Anyway – have another nice day.

Araneus

26th July 2007, 03:13 PM

I point out how absolutely undiplomatic your statement is – not necessarily to me- but to simply dismiss a discipline that has been in place for 5000 years, that is being used by a good section of the worlds population, (and is NOT Greek for gods sake!) in such a crass way on a public board where many of whose readers probably use Ayurveda and are Asian is not acceptable (for me anyway).

That's their problem. People have believed in all sorts of nonsense for 5000 years, such as astrology, faith healing etc. Whether a belief has been around for a long time or is believed by large numbers of people has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true or valid, and no special respect is earned by having these properties (age or popularity).

If people get offended by having their precious ancient-and-popular beliefs dismissed, then they shouldn't read a skeptics' forum. End of story.

Allo Allo

26th July 2007, 05:30 PM

That's their problem. People have believed in all sorts of nonsense for 5000 years, such as astrology, faith healing etc. Whether a belief has been around for a long time or is believed by large numbers of people has absolutely nothing to do with whether it is true or valid, and no special respect is earned by having these properties (age or popularity).

If people get offended by having their precious ancient-and-popular beliefs dismissed, then they shouldn't read a skeptics' forum. End of story.

I absolutely agree with you if we were discussing that people have believed in all sorts of nonsense for 5000 years, such as astrology, faith healing etc - but we aren't! Drug companies are researching the healing properties of herbs and remedies of ANY traditional medical system, because, if properly tested, they could be turned into useful drugs. And Ayurveda is one of the traditional healing systems using herbs, spices and remedies they are studying. I can't see that even the most radical sceptic could see that as a bad thing. The moral implication of a drug company from a western country patenting a traditional herbal remedy and - if after clinical trials - it is found to be effective, making make money from it and its country of origin does not, is a whole other issue which has been going on for years. I don't know the solution, except that some eastern/asian countries are trying to circumvent this, by doing their own trials.

I have no vested interests, except I read a lot. ;D

Allo Allo

26th July 2007, 05:43 PM

Oh, and I believe that politeness, diplomacy and giving credit where it is due is the best way to win friends and influence people......

Araneus

27th July 2007, 09:57 AM

The moral implication of a drug company from a western country patenting a traditional herbal remedy and - if after clinical trials - it is found to be effective, making make money from it and its country of origin does not, is a whole other issue which has been going on for years. I don't know the solution

The solution is to get rid of the indefensible legal fiction (patent) which allows a commercial company to claim "ownership" over scientific principles which have existed for millions of years. Governments should pass laws that nullify any patent where there is an issue of public health involved, no matter what the drug companies say.

Matt

27th July 2007, 11:41 AM

The solution is to get rid of the indefensible legal fiction (patent) which allows a commercial company to claim "ownership" over scientific principles which have existed for millions of years. Governments should pass laws that nullify any patent where there is an issue of public health involved, no matter what the drug companies say.

If they simply resold a herbal remedy whihc had been in use for years then the patent would be invalid due to prior art.

If, however, they extracted the component ingredients and looked tested them individually and in combination to find the most effective balance. Perhaps working our how the elements work and making chemical adjustments then they deserve to be able to reap rewards for their work. Thus the patent system.

Cuddles

27th July 2007, 11:45 AM

Skep-speak (very common practice on JRF – less common here thank goodness)

“It's a standard lie from the “s”CAM industry”

So if the sCAM industry constantly trot out lies about natural or popualr things being good it is somehow wrong to call it a standard lie?

“This is one of the oldest bits of nonsense from the “quacks”

Same again. If something is a bit of nonsense that had been used by quacks for a very long time, what is wrong with describing it as such?

"real medicine”

As the saying goes, there is medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work. There is no such thing as "alternative" or "complementary" medicine. If it works, it is real medicine, if it doesn't, it's quackery.

“random believer”

I really don't see how you can claim this as "skep-speak", since it is something only I have ever said as far as I know. "Random" is a word mostly used by people around my age to describe a normal or average thing. For example, "a random person off the street" would just mean the average layperson. In this context a "random believer" just means an average person who believes in something but has not researched it in depth and has no vested interest in it. There is nothing in any skeptical or perjorative about the word "random", and the fact that you repeat this even after I have explained it once says an awful lot about your biases.

""Natural and "traditional" are not synonyms for "safe"".

And they're not. Yet the sCAM industry constantly says they are. As have you. Once again, just because something has been used for a long time does not in any way mean that it has been proven safe, as you have claimed. As far as I am aware, I am the only person who has used this exact phrase, but as long as quacks keep claiming the same nonsense it should come as no surprise that people keep saying something similar.

“Woo”

It's a useful word. Not everything can be described as paranormal, not everything can be described as quackery, not everything can be describes as pseudoscience. "Woo" is useful because it encompases describes any belief that is grounded in wishful thinking rather than fact. If you don't like it then you should think about examining beliefs that lead you to be called this.

The HAS to be some other way to explain these things - English is such a rich language!

Why would we need any other way to explain them. If something is a lie that is used by pretty much every quack around and has been explained and debunked numerous times, why bother thinking up different ways of explaining it? If a statement like ""Natural" and "traditional" are not synonyms for "safe"" is completly true and sums things up in a succinct way, why should I say anything else? Everyone may have the right to their own beliefs, but that does mean the rest of us don't have the right to question them. Once again, if you don't like the things said about your beliefs, perhaps you should examine why they are being said rather than just criticising those who say them.

I repeat to Cuddles
“If you read trial results of how “effective” some drugs are in “curing” a condition, you will find that it is hardly more than placebo. Yet they are marketed and sold as “effective”. Translated into interplanetary lingo – this means “It is wrong to sell drugs which are NOT – NOT – NOT really effective.” What’s insane about thinking that??????

It's insane because your "translation" is not what is actually being said. Read it again. "You will find that it is hardly more than placebo". Read it again. "More than placebo". Got it yet? More than placebo. As in more. As in, they are effective. And yet you say this is a bad thing. You say it is a bad thing that drug companies say that effective drugs are effective. If you can't see just how insane that is then really give up.

Araneus

27th July 2007, 01:08 PM

If, however, they extracted the component ingredients and looked tested them individually and in combination to find the most effective balance. Perhaps working our how the elements work and making chemical adjustments then they deserve to be able to reap rewards for their work.

Why? Scientific discoveries like this have been made for years, without the need of a patent system to stimulate them.

People can patent lawnmowers and telephones all they want, but as soon as there is an issue of life, death or health involved I see no justification for governments to grant imagined "property" rights to such discoveries, no matter how much effort was involved in making them.

Cuddles

27th July 2007, 02:08 PM

Why? Scientific discoveries like this have been made for years, without the need of a patent system to stimulate them.

People can patent lawnmowers and telephones all they want, but as soon as there is an issue of life, death or health involved I see no justification for governments to grant imagined "property" rights to such discoveries, no matter how much effort was involved in making them.

When? The patent system has existed in the UK since 1623 (according to Wiki), well before modern medicine or chemistry. Can you give an example of any purposely designed drug (rather than accidental ones like paracetamol) that was not protected by patent?

When it comes down to it, drug companies are companies. No-one is going to spend a single penny on research if they aren't going to get anything out of it. Developing new drugs takes millions, or more, of pounds. What would be the point in spending all this if everyone with a chemistry set can copy you while not having any costs to recoup? Yes, it would be nice if everyone worked for nothing and gave away all their ideas for the benefit of everyone, but it's not going to happen. If you want people to make an effort, you have to compensate them, simple as that.

Just think about it. What's the biggest problem with bird flu, and flu in general? It's that no-one will research it unless they'll get something in return, but the countries affected want the cure at no cost to themselves. Net result, end of research. Why are may diseases such a problem in developing countries? Because they can't afford to pay for treatment, and no-one will just give them drugs free, whether the drugs are old ones or newly invented. Yes, it would be nice if all drugs were freely available to everyone, but that's just not the way the world works, nor will it ever be.

Allo Allo

27th July 2007, 08:16 PM

So if the sCAM industry constantly trot out lies about natural or popualr things being good it is somehow wrong to call it a standard lie?

Same again. If something is a bit of nonsense that had been used by quacks for a very long time, what is wrong with describing it as such?

As the saying goes, there is medicine that works and medicine that doesn't work. There is no such thing as "alternative" or "complementary" medicine. If it works, it is real medicine, if it doesn't, it's quackery.

I really don't see how you can claim this as "skep-speak", since it is something only I have ever said as far as I know. "Random" is a word mostly used by people around my age to describe a normal or average thing. For example, "a random person off the street" would just mean the average layperson. In this context a "random believer" just means an average person who believes in something but has not researched it in depth and has no vested interest in it. There is nothing in any skeptical or perjorative about the word "random", and the fact that you repeat this even after I have explained it once says an awful lot about your biases.

And they're not. Yet the sCAM industry constantly says they are. As have you. Once again, just because something has been used for a long time does not in any way mean that it has been proven safe, as you have claimed. As far as I am aware, I am the only person who has used this exact phrase, but as long as quacks keep claiming the same nonsense it should come as no surprise that people keep saying something similar.

It's a useful word. Not everything can be described as paranormal, not everything can be described as quackery, not everything can be describes as pseudoscience. "Woo" is useful because it encompases describes any belief that is grounded in wishful thinking rather than fact. If you don't like it then you should think about examining beliefs that lead you to be called this.

Why would we need any other way to explain them. If something is a lie that is used by pretty much every quack around and has been explained and debunked numerous times, why bother thinking up different ways of explaining it? If a statement like ""Natural" and "traditional" are not synonyms for "safe"" is completly true and sums things up in a succinct way, why should I say anything else? Everyone may have the right to their own beliefs, but that does mean the rest of us don't have the right to question them. Once again, if you don't like the things said about your beliefs, perhaps you should examine why they are being said rather than just criticising those who say them.

[font=Verdana]

It's insane because your "translation" is not what is actually being said. Read it again. "You will find that it is hardly more than placebo". Read it again. "More than placebo". Got it yet? More than placebo. As in more. As in, they are effective. And yet you say this is a bad thing. You say it is a bad thing that drug companies say that effective drugs are effective. If you can't see just how insane that is then really give up.

The crazy thing about this whole conversation between us, is that I agree with you on the things you say (just not how you say them) - the dis-agreement is that I never said otherwise!

The sentence "You will find that it is hardly more than placebo" is better analysed by emphasizing hardly - which means almost no difference. (well it did when I last taught English)

Nowadays, many words are used differently to the original meaning - the way you use random for instance....shows a developing trend. This is not a criticism. It can make for confusion when speaking to a generation who has learned the meaning differently.

Anyway, I suggest we bury the hatchet - I obviously make you lose your cool. I can see in other things you write on this forum that you are very cool indeed - just not with me.

Peace! O0

ohmgrownchron

13th January 2008, 06:24 PM

Ayurveda is 5000 year old medical system of healing based in Northern India. They say that, to have no diesese you must have all three doshas balenced. Pitta, Kapha and Vatta If one or more of the doshas are out of balence then you will have diesese. They use minerals, that we are dangerous like yellow arsinic, mercury and such. But they make preperations before consuming them so that they will become medicine. I have seen the documentary, Ayruveda: the art of being. And you get to see Doctor Swamigal eat mecurey! Of course he prepared it first so that it wont become toxic. Also The Doctors, like swamigal have already cured thousands of patients with different types of cancer. 80% of them with complete success. The reason the other 20 didnt not, is because many things can unbalence the three doshas, like lifestyle, diet, weather and other factors. So they were probably not following what they were supposed to do properly. They also do not test on animals, like rabbits or mice to find cures for diesese. The doctors tested thier medicine on themselves first. I can assure you that this is no hoax, if you do not beileve me then, you can go to india and find out for yourself. Or just watch the documentary i stated before.

Fiona

13th January 2008, 06:54 PM

How do you prepare mercury "so that it will not become toxic?" It is toxic, so far as I know

FarSideOfTheMoon

13th January 2008, 07:19 PM

If he really eats the mercury, then I think he will die before his time. Have you ever considered he might not actually eat it? It's not unknown for gurus or holy men to act just a little fraudulently. Really.

ohmgrownchron

13th January 2008, 09:26 PM

I know he ate mecurey. Watch the film, im serious hes 65 years old i think and im sure hes eaten mecurey before.

bindeweede

13th January 2008, 09:34 PM

I know he ate mecurey. Watch the film, im serious hes 65 years old i think and im sure hes eaten mecurey before.

Do you have any link to the film?

We have all seen "Psychic surgeons" pulling "tumours" out of living bodies, but we also know it is fakery. An illusion. Eating mercury is almost certainly the same - a trick.

EDIT. Do you believe everything you see in films,TV or read in newspapers? Have you heard of computer generated imaging, Photoshop, conjuring tricks?

JJM

13th January 2008, 10:45 PM

ohmgrownchron

13th January 2008, 11:02 PM

Do you have any link to the film?

We have all seen "Psychic surgeons" pulling "tumours" out of living bodies, but we also know it is fakery. An illusion. Eating mercury is almost certainly the same - a trick.

EDIT. Do you believe everything you see in films,TV or read in newspapers? Have you heard of computer generated imaging, Photoshop, conjuring tricks?

well i guess we cant believe anything can we, since its posible that its fake, it must be...
http://www.ayurvedafilm.com/

I don't see why he would want to fake eating mecurey. He doesnt want want publicity, people already know him very well and he doesnt want money, infact that is why im so interested in it. Because its all free. Any money earned through medical science is contaminated. They have no greed and ego.

bindeweede

13th January 2008, 11:13 PM

Thus, Ayurveda for centuries has prevailed consciously or unconsciously in our existence regardless of where we live; but is still awaiting its long due to be in light. Only because our era of mad-cows, crazy chickens and polyester pigs demands it. Rise in global temperature has created havocs in year 2000 and worst is still to come. In the times of net, news and nuclear we as mankind are asking this question more seriously then ever before: Whether healthy man means healthy earth or healthy earth means healthy man?

"Polyester pigs"?

Does this get the message over?

Briefly, Ayurveda is a science that teaches us how to live in a true natural balance. This is not limited to the proper functioning of our mind, body, senses and soul but extends further in establishing a natural and balanced relationship with the nature as a whole. This includes a balanced relationship between us and all the creatures, work, home, environment, society, ideas, customs and finally the love.

So, do we have here, Angelic Reiki, Crystal Reiki, Crystal Healing, Angelic Healing, Psychic Surgery?
But no mention of vibrations, or energy, or stuff of which there is no evidence.

Or more toss-pot stuff?

bindeweede

13th January 2008, 11:28 PM

Any money earned through medical science is contaminated. They have no greed and ego.

I apologise, but I do not understand this. Money is contaminated with what?

Fiona

14th January 2008, 12:04 AM

One can ingest elemental mercury with no immediate effect. The metal passes the digestive tract mostly unchanged and not absorbed.

Opinions differ on how long one can consume it in elemental form without long-term (seriously deleterious) effects. "Mostly unchanged and unabsorbed" is not "entirely unchanged and unabsorbed."

You are correct and I did not know this. Nevertheless it was said that the mercury was "prepared". From what little I have read since you post I am wondering if that might not make it more toxic? Does anyone know what this "preparation" might be?

Acleron

14th January 2008, 12:09 AM

I don't see why he would want to fake eating mecurey. He doesnt want want publicity, people already know him very well and he doesnt want money, infact that is why im so interested in it. Because its all free. Any money earned through medical science is contaminated. They have no greed and ego.

Doesn't want any publicity and yet allows a film to be taken and published on the internet. He is at the very least naive.

If it's all free, how does he pay for the herbs, let alone the mercury? How does he eat?

Earning money by treating people is not unethical or fraudulent providing the justification for charging is that there is evidence that the treatment works. Charging for treatment with herbs which have been shown to be no different from placebo may be legal in certain countries but is certainly unethical and immoral.

Jocky

14th January 2008, 05:33 PM

Hi ohmgrownchron, and welcome to UKS.

The Doctors, like swamigal have already cured thousands of patients with different types of cancer. 80% of them with complete success.

Is that precise success rate which you quote based on the outcome of a trial?

If so, please could you provide a reference to your source?

If not, you may be interested to know that it is illegal in this country to market something which claims to be a cure for cancer when this claim is not supported by evidence. This sanction exists for good reason - it is to prevent desperately ill people being conned out of their money.

I have seen the documentary, Ayruveda: the art of being ... I can assure you that this is no hoax, if you do not beileve me then, you can go to india and find out for yourself. Or just watch the documentary i stated before.

TV documentaries and anecdotes do not constitute evidence and should convince nobody of anything, especially on such a serious matter as fatal disease. Please support your contention with evidence.

yanga

15th January 2008, 07:34 PM

Please soemoen tell me where this place in kerala it is. thanks. God bless you

Pebble

16th January 2008, 07:04 PM

Please soemoen tell me where this place in kerala it is. thanks. God bless you

Your entry worries me, I get the impression you may have been suckered into actually believing that some of this nonsense might be true. If anyone had a cure rate for cancer of greater than 50% properly documented, then however it worked, the media, medics and pharma would be all over them, either hailing them as heros or desperately trying to disprove the case advanced. The only reason someone makes a claim like this is because they are frauds or gulliable.
You can write what you like on the internet, as long as the laws in the country you write from do not specifically stop you making false unproven claims.

Julia

16th January 2008, 07:58 PM

Yanga, people who make claims of this nature fall into two categories - frauds who are only interested in money and fame, or self-deluded cranks who are just as dangerous. I hope you don't take this nonsense seriously.

ohmgrownchron

18th January 2008, 03:45 AM

Doesn't want any publicity and yet allows a film to be taken and published on the internet. He is at the very least naive.

If it's all free, how does he pay for the herbs, let alone the mercury? How does he eat?

Earning money by treating people is not unethical or fraudulent providing the justification for charging is that there is evidence that the treatment works. Charging for treatment with herbs which have been shown to be no different from placebo may be legal in certain countries but is certainly unethical and immoral.

Ahahah pays for the herbs... herbs are grown naturally, in the wild Mercurey is also found naturally. He doesnt need to pay for herbs lol. Also they don't desire money, people are allowed to give them money but its not asked/demanded for. Also lol he didnt ask for someone to make a documentary, the filmaker, decided to make this film and the ayurveda doctor obviously allowed him to be filmed cause he has nothing to hide.

Matt

18th January 2008, 09:54 AM

Cuddles

18th January 2008, 10:18 AM

Ahahah pays for the herbs... herbs are grown naturally

Most food is grown naturally, does that mean you don't pay for it?

in the wild Mercurey is also found naturally.

Which brings up the important point that most sCAM proponents seem to forget. Just because something is natural doesn't mean it's safe. As I've said before - nature makes lots of wonderful things, but you shouldn't put most of them in your mouth.

Pebble

18th January 2008, 10:54 AM

Ahahah pays for the herbs... herbs are grown naturally, in the wild Mercurey is also found naturally. He doesnt need to pay for herbs lol. Also they don't desire money, people are allowed to give them money but its not asked/demanded for. Also lol he didnt ask for someone to make a documentary, the filmaker, decided to make this film and the ayurveda doctor obviously allowed him to be filmed cause he has nothing to hide.

Perhaps a little context would help, as the tread seems to have started concentrating on mercury - pure madness using that!

Ayurveda had been extensively studied (>300 publications in PubMed) However, there are only 10 clinical trials, and only 3 randomised trials: one showing that it was ineffective for sleep disorders, another showing inefficacy for depression and a third showing lack of observed efficacy for lichen planus. There are no published clinical trials in cancer that I can find, but there is clear laboratory evidence of some potentially interesting effects on cancer cells.

So like many therapies we currently use (Aspirin, penicillin etc) there may indeed be some truth in the observations made over the past 5000 years, just that the impact is so small that without large scale clinical trials it cannot be observed. Much more likely is that there is something we can learn or extract from Ayurveda that will be of significant use, but that the whole herb is generally too toxic and associated mythology has strayed too far from the essence of the actual effects to be of use in treatment.

Further details for those interested

'Balachandran P (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Balachandran%20P%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus), Govindarajan R (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=Search&Term=%22Govindarajan%20R%22%5BAuthor%5D&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus).
National Center for Natural Products Research, Department of Pharmacognosy, University of Mississippi, MS 38677, USA. prembala@olemiss.edu
An integrated approach is needed to manage cancer using the growing body of knowledge gained through scientific developments. Thousands of herbal and traditional compounds are being screened worldwide to validate their use as anti-cancerous drugs. The science of Ayurveda is supposed to add a step on to the curative aspects of cancers that have resemblance with clinical entities of arbuda and granthi mentioned in Sushrutha samhita. Hence, an attempt is made in this review to discuss about the pathology and therapeutic management of various cancers described in Ayurveda. Review of literature on anticancer drugs of plant origin revealed identification of newer ayurvedic drugs that are not mentioned in the ancient texts. These new findings add up to ayurvedic science that has been developed through ages. In addition, details of experimental and clinical studies conducted on single and compound ayurvedic preparations for their anticancer efficacy strongly emphasize ayurvedic therapy as a scientifically driven one and not simply unconventional.'

Acleron

18th January 2008, 12:09 PM

vanwinkle

24th May 2008, 10:33 PM

I am as dubious as the next guy and especially regards cancer but funnily enough the first three things I tried ayurvedic noticeably worked for me.
So who knows?
Best
vanwinkle

bindeweede

24th May 2008, 10:42 PM

I am as dubious as the next guy and especially regards cancer but funnily enough the first three things I tried ayurvedic noticeably worked for me.
So who knows?
Best
vanwinkle

Welcome vanwinkle,

Would you be able to say what were the 3 ayurvedic things you tried?

bindeweede

24th May 2008, 11:23 PM

vanwinkle

You may have benefitted from the substances having been ground into nanoparticles.

"No ayurvedic medicine ever has an expiry date", notes Sagare. With milling and grinding, the particles of the compound are turned into nano-particles.

Calling it a viable preposition, Dr D.P. Nerkar, principal of Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Biotechnology said unlike ayurvedic medicines where the particles are in nano size, the particles of the compound used in allopathic medicines are large.

Therefore, the disintegration of the compound is possible, which in turn affects therapeutic value of medicine. Hence, the concept of 'expiry' in medicines. But the theory proposed by Dr Sagare overcomes this limitation and breaks new grounds in pharmacy, Nerkar said.

http://www.nano.org.uk/news/may2008/latest1359.htm

Mongrel

25th May 2008, 01:28 AM

But when some of the medicines in the form of tablets and powders were again crushed and ground mechanically upto nano-scale and used, it was observed there was no change in the properties of these medicines, he said.

1) Would be nice to see a proper reference for this and given that there's thousands of Pharmokineticists (http://pipeline.corante.com/archives/pharmacokinetics/)(sp?) working industriously figuring out improvements in the drugs+body equation I think they'd have noticed this study by now.

2) I'm quite dubious that "the ceramic method*" can get anywhere near the consistency of modern production methods
*Given the traditional nature I'm presuming a pestle and mortar

3) How does this account for liquid medicines (solutions) having an expiry date, nano particulates would be the same once you've dumped them in a solvent.

4) Call me Mr Cynical but my guess for the reason they don't have expiry dates is they don't test them... (also if you where to buy a pre-packaged remedy it'd have an expiry date on it O0)

Vanwinkle, you may want to read either Trick or Treatment (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trick-Treatment-Alternative-Medicine-Trial/dp/0593061292/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1211675104&sr=8-1) or Snake Oil Science (http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195313682). Both explain why treatments that don't work make you better.