Acupuncture Study: Beneficial for breast cancer side effects

[Justforfun000]

I wrote:

The consumers I'm referring to mainly, but even a good half of a survey of Ontario doctor's were in favour of more integration.

Oops. I misread that Abstract. Oh well.

[Justforfun000]

Hey, case in point about what I said. Here is a "traditional" herbal remedy, and they have discovered that, lo and behold...it actually DOES have some efficacy in the vein of its reputation. I value skepticism, but I swear some of you on this board go too far. You're so ready to completely dismiss and toss out the window any possibility of something being useful and able to be CHOSEN if it doesn't pass your absolute double-blind randomized clinical studies.


Just try to remember that it costs money for this to be done and financial issues of recouping costs or simply plain interest sufficient enough to find backers can hold back testing of many products and therapies for years. Many consumers want the option to choose unproven therapies. I'm one of them and I don't like the government to be too "big brother".

Many adults choose to not wait so long and prefer to try traditional usage of some medicines and treatments to help improve their health. Again, if there is no harm to the person and there are regulations sufficient enough to prevent bullshit hype marketing, this should be a person's choice.

Natural Viagra? "Horny Goat Weed" Shows Promise In Lab Studies
Main Category: Erectile Dysfunction / Premature Ejaculation
Also Included In: Men's health; Urology / Nephrology
Article Date: 25 Sep 2008 - 5:00 PDT

Move over, Viagra! Researchers in Italy report that an ancient Chinese herbal remedy known as "horny goat weed" shows potential in lab studies as source for new future drugs to treat erectile dysfunction (ED). The study, which provides scientific evidence supporting the herb's well-known use as a natural aphrodisiac, is scheduled for the October 24 issue of ACS' Journal of Natural Products, a monthly publication.

In the new study, Mario Dell'Agli and colleagues point out that Viagra (sildenafil) and several other prescription drugs are now available for ED, or male impotence. ED affects an estimated 18 million men in the United States alone. Studies show, however, that these drugs may cause side effects such as headache, facial flushing, stomach upset, and visual disturbances.

To find better treatments, the scientists studied herbal extracts reputed to improve sexual performance. Scientists exposed the substances to an enzyme that controls blood flow to the penis and whose inhibition results in an erection. Of the extracts tested, "horny goat weed" was the most potent inhibitor of the enzyme. By chemical modification of icariin, the active ingredient purified from the extract, the scientists obtained a derivative with activity similar to Viagra and a potential for fewer side effects because it targeted the protein more precisely than sildenafil. - MTS

[General Zod]

>snip strawman<

Exactly where in my argument am I denying anyone the right to choose? I keep saying that companies should not label their treatments as being able to do something that has not been clinically verified. NOT that the treatment itself should be taken away. Why exactly is this so hard to grasp?

Just try to remember that it costs money for this to be done and financial issues of recouping costs or simply plain interest sufficient enough to find backers can hold back testing of many products and therapies for years. Many consumers want the option to choose unproven therapies. I'm one of them and I don't like the government to be too "big brother".

There's a reason it costs a lot of money to be done. The moment a patient has an adverse reaction, guess who's ass is getting sued?

Again, if there is no harm to the person and there are regulations sufficient enough to prevent bullshit hype marketing, this should be a person's choice.

Foregoing genuine medical treatment in favor of a non working placebo is a form of harm. Especially if that "alternative" treatment is using aggressive advertising.

[Justforfun000]

Zod Wrote:

Exactly where in my argument am I denying anyone the right to choose? I keep saying that companies should not label their treatments as being able to do something that has not been clinically verified. NOT that the treatment itself should be taken away. Why exactly is this so hard to grasp?

Oh, I'm sorry. I could have sworn that's exactly what you were getting at.
Now that I read through again I realize you were just making the point they shouldn't be allowed to make false health claims. We're in total agreement then.

There's a reason it costs a lot of money to be done. The moment a patient has an adverse reaction, guess who's ass is getting sued?

True enough in the case of pharmaceuticals, but this is again where a grey area exists for traditional, and in this sense that also means "time-tested", for sometimes CENTURIES. For many herbs as well as unconventional treatments, we have a long history to draw upon. It doesn't guarantee they'll be 100% safe of course, but it's a much better tracfk record to bank on then a brand new pharmaceutical.

Foregoing genuine medical treatment in favor of a non working placebo is a form of harm. Especially if that "alternative" treatment is using aggressive advertising.

I've already addressed this, but it's a red herring in any event. we're talking about adults. Also there are many people who were pronounced dead in three months that said "Fuck you" and went the alternative route and even though we cannot explain it let alone prove it, have beat the incredible odds and overcome what looked like certain death. This is someone's right as an adult to to choose this kind of alternative, and the government, medical doctors and even the scientists should not have the right to deny them.

No matter how knowledgeable they get, no matter how well researched, they don't know all the answers and what might be a cure for one could be poison for another.

[General Zod]

I've already addressed this, but it's a red herring in any event. we're talking about adults. Also there are many people who were pronounced dead in three months that said "Fuck you" and went the alternative route and even though we cannot explain it let alone prove it, have beat the incredible odds and overcome what looked like certain death. This is someone's right as an adult to to choose this kind of alternative, and the government, medical doctors and even the scientists should not have the right to deny them.

No matter how knowledgeable they get, no matter how well researched, they don't know all the answers and what might be a cure for one could be poison for another.

There's always going to be stubborn idiots, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take as many steps to mitigate the negligence on part of the retailer as possible. That's like saying we shouldn't put nutritional information on food because people will eat what they want anyway and damn the health benefits.

[Justforfun000]

General Zod Wrote:

There's always going to be stubborn idiots, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't take as many steps to mitigate the negligence on part of the retailer as possible. That's like saying we shouldn't put nutritional information on food because people will eat what they want anyway and damn the health benefits.

Hey man, again..no argument here. I'm all for pushing regulation that's very stringent as to what's allowed regarding health claims. As long as they do not outlaw the treatments themselves, or prevent specific herbal products from being sold to people who want them no matter what the evidence or lack thereof is there. Except in the case of true harm being established.

Good example is Kava Kava. It was becoming a very popular herb when it was introduced into the market some years back. It was fairly new to the public because it's found in Polynesia primarily. But some people were finding mysterious signs of liver damage, so they yanked it. That's responsible and the proper time to step in and interfere in the free market.

[General Zod]

Hey man, again..no argument here. I'm all for pushing regulation that's very stringent as to what's allowed regarding health claims. As long as they do not outlaw the treatments themselves, or prevent specific herbal products from being sold to people who want them no matter what the evidence or lack thereof is there. Except in the case of true harm being established.

I'd be willing to step that up for outright fraud as well, as "true" harm need not be just physical health. Enzyte is a compelling example of why it's not a good idea to let people push whatever they want as a treatment with no proof, even as "traditional" or "alternative" medicine. Alternatively, see Scientology and their nonsense about mental health care.

[Justforfun000]

I'd be willing to step that up for outright fraud as well, as "true" harm need not be just physical health.

Agreed.

Enzyte is a compelling example of why it's not a good idea to let people push whatever they want as a treatment with no proof, even as "traditional" or "alternative" medicine

This is another example of Caveat Emptor. Unfortunately it's impossible to draw the line perfectly. The most important thing people have to remember is to do your own research and if something sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is.

I'm sure they could find a means to limit the marketing and promotional hype a company like this used to bamboozle the public. That's the portion to target in this instance.

Here is a good example of a product I'm quite interested in lately. It's from the company http://www.aor.ca/. They are a reputable company and they typically list all related information as to clinical studies and so forth within their product monographs.

They have a new formulation out called Ortho Liver which has Metadoxine in it as it's main ingredient. If you do a search for this through google, you'll find quite a few good quality studies showing a definite positive effect on the liver. To my knowledge, they still don't have this as a prescription item, so the only way to get this currently is through this herbal compilation formula which includes other substances like Milk thistle and Artichoke Leaf, etc. Here's a smattering of the studies on Metadoxine:

1. Poisoning
01/01/2002 - "More patients receiving metadoxine in addition to standard therapy significantly improved by at least one degree of intoxication (one clinical category) compared with those receiving standard treatment alone (76.9% versus 42.3%, respectively)"

01/01/2002 - "This randomized, open-label study evaluated the efficacy of 300 mg metadoxine (given intravenously) added to standard treatment compared with standard treatment alone in managing the physical and psychological signs of acute alcohol intoxication"

03/01/2002 - "BACKGROUND: At present there are only intriguing and preliminary clinical results regarding the efficacy of metadoxine (pyridoxol L-2-pyrrolidone-5-carboxylate) in acute alcohol intoxication"

01/01/2002 - "Metadoxine improved the clinical signs of acute alcohol intoxication and accelerated alcohol clearance from the blood, thus supporting existing data"

01/01/2002 - "Efficacy of metadoxine in the management of acute alcohol intoxication."

2. Alcoholic Liver Diseases (Alcoholic Liver Disease)
01/01/1998 - "Thus, metadoxine could be useful in the treatment of the early stages of alcoholic liver disease."

03/01/1992 - "Metadoxine can therefore be considered a valuable resource in the treatment of alcoholic liver disease."

11/01/2001 - "Thus, metadoxine could be useful in preventing the damage produced in early stages of alcoholic liver disease as it prevents the redox imbalance of the hepatocytes and prevents TNF- alpha induction, one of the earliest events in hepatic damage."
Get all the results and reference details, order at left...

3. Alcoholic Fatty Liver
04/01/1999 - "Treatment of alcoholic fatty liver: is the metabolic effect of metadoxine the only reason for improved liver function?"

01/01/1998 - "CONCLUSIONS: In patients with alcoholic fatty liver, metadoxine accelerates the normalization of liver function tests and the ultrasonographic changes, even in those who do not completely abstain from alcohol intake"

01/01/1998 - "BACKGROUND/AIMS: Our aim was to investigate the effectiveness of metadoxine (pyridoxol L, 2 pyrrolidone-5-carboxylate) in the treatment of alcoholic fatty liver"

4. Dyskinesias (Dyskinesia)
07/31/1989 - "Compared with a control group of patients undergoing traditional therapy (sedative and multi-vitamin drugs), metadoxine showed a significant improvement of the values of gamma-GT, GPT, blood ammonia, blood alcohol and of neuropsychic and behavioural parameters such as agitation, tremor, asterixis, sopor and depression"
Get all the results and reference details, order at left...

5. Tremor (Tremors)
07/31/1989 - "Compared with a control group of patients undergoing traditional therapy (sedative and multi-vitamin drugs), metadoxine showed a significant improvement of the values of gamma-GT, GPT, blood ammonia, blood alcohol and of neuropsychic and behavioural parameters such as agitation, tremor, asterixis, sopor and depression"
Get all the results and reference details, order at left... A follow up study on the efficacy of metadoxine in the treatment of alcohol dependenceOur findings indicate that the group of patients treated with metadoxine shows a better three months outcome both in terms of drop-out rate and complete abstinence. These results are in accordance to the data reported by Rizzo and co-workers (1993) that showed a better improvement of the patients treated with metadoxine in terms of abstinence maintenance at least in the short term [19].Regarding the psychometric rating scales score for alcoholism only the MAST test showed a statistically different improvement in the metadoxine treated group suggesting a global improvement of the Alcohol Dependence. Metadoxine prevents damage produced by ethanol (alcohol) and acetaldehyde in hepatocyte and hepatic stellate cells in culture Metadoxine (pyridoxine–pyrrolidone carboxylate) has been reported to improve liver function tests in alcoholic patients. In the present work we have investigated the effect of metadoxine on some parameters of cellular damage in hepatocytes and hepatic stellate cells in culture treated with ethanol and acetaldehyde. HepG2 and CFSC-2G cells were treated with 50 mM ethanol or 175 μ M acetaldehyde as initial concentration in the presence or absence of 10μ g ml−1of metadoxine. Twenty-four hours later reduced and oxidized glutathione content, lipid peroxidation damage, collagen secretion and IL-6, IL-8 and TNF- α secretion were determined. Our results suggest that metadoxine prevents glutathione depletion and the increase in lipid peroxidation damage caused by ethanol and acetaldehyde in HepG2 cells. In hepatic stellate cells, metadoxine prevents the increase in collagen and attenuated TNF- α secretion caused by acetaldehyde. Thus, metadoxine could be useful in preventing the damage produced in early stages of alcoholic liver disease as it prevents the redox imbalance of the hepatocytes and prevents TNF- α induction, one of the earliest events in hepatic damage.

[General Zod]

This is another example of Caveat Emptor. Unfortunately it's impossible to draw the line perfectly. The most important thing people have to remember is to do your own research and if something sounds too good to be true, it almost certainly is.

Since when is "Caveat Emptor" a valid ethical position? If anything it's the single worst way to run the medical industry specifically because of cases like these.

[FOG3]

Why does it need to be proven harmful? They shouldn't be attempting to pass it off as a valid medical treatment that works in place of conventional medicine if there's no evidence supporting it, period. Sugar pills aren't harmful, but only an idiot wanting to get sent to prison for fraud would even consider passing them off as a way to treat anything. (As an example).

You do realize until well into the 1940s when Streptomycin was isolated at Rutgers there was no effective antibiotic on the face of the planet? And that project involving isolating things out of soil samples on the idea that seems as how there isn't a green goo problem with TB then there had to be something present in the soil that could counteract it leading to the derivation of the term antibiotic from antibiosis when it was discovered.

You further realize this means "conventional" medicine in terms of drug therapy has only really had anything to show for itself in the last sixty years, despite centuries of existence? Your "conventional" medicine guys were historically the bleeders and the mercury pushers. They really are not justified to the haughtiness you have chosen to repeat.

They don't need to be babysat, but they do need to be informed. Letting anything call itself a medicine or say that it has any medical benefits without vigorous testing supporting the claims it's making is not helping with that, and would only wind up confusing people.

If you truly want to let people make their own medical choices, then why do the "remedies" need to make any claims whatsoever on the bottle? If they work, then people can look up the treatments themselves and decide what's best based on the information that's out there instead of hoping that the bottle they're picking isn't lying to them.

Excuse me? Nutrasweet, Fen-Phen, and believe me I can go on here all the way back to the AMA certifying feeding children distilled petroleum because Rockefeller didn't have cars as a market for it yet. You seem to have a utterly unfounded or justified level of faith in the AMA or FDA.

The thing is these traditional treatments have been around for hundreds of years, things that can emerge tend to in that kind of time frame. No conventional medicine has remotely comparable testing in those terms, although you can claim modern trials are better documented then history of trial and error.

What are you going to defend the AMA under Fishbein going after the chriopractors, as quacks too? Don't be such a useful idiot for the AMA.

Exactly where in my argument am I denying anyone the right to choose? I keep saying that companies should not label their treatments as being able to do something that has not been clinically verified. NOT that the treatment itself should be taken away. Why exactly is this so hard to grasp?

The part where you're to ignorant to recognize the pharmaceutical industry pushed the FDA to do what testing it does, and set the standards exactly so those that weren't mega-corps were locked out of the market due to inability to fund said testing. The FDA regs were demanded by the industry, not the public or otherwise. Furthermore as I already alluded to there is a long history of utter failure to rigorously test medicine before it hits the shelves, and even outright fraud such as the distilled petroleum nonsense.

[General Zod]

You do realize until well into the 1940s when Streptomycin was isolated at Rutgers there was no effective antibiotic on the face of the planet? And that project involving isolating things out of soil samples on the idea that seems as how there isn't a green goo problem with TB then there had to be something present in the soil that could counteract it leading to the derivation of the term antibiotic from antibiosis when it was discovered.

Clinical testing was also incredibly primitive if non existent back then. What does that have to do with modern standards, which is the only thing I'm addressing?

You further realize this means "conventional" medicine in terms of drug therapy has only really had anything to show for itself in the last sixty years, despite centuries of existence? Your "conventional" medicine guys were historically the bleeders and the mercury pushers. They really are not justified to the haughtiness you have chosen to repeat.

I'd say the fact that conventional medicine has made so many leaps in the last 60 years is an argument in favor of it. How many diseases has "traditional" medicine virtually eliminated in first world countries?

Excuse me? Nutrasweet, Fen-Phen, and believe me I can go on here all the way back to the AMA certifying feeding children distilled petroleum because Rockefeller didn't have cars as a market for it yet. You seem to have a utterly unfounded or justified level of faith in the AMA or FDA.

The thing is these traditional treatments have been around for hundreds of years, things that can emerge tend to in that kind of time frame. No conventional medicine has remotely comparable testing in those terms, although you can claim modern trials are better documented then history of trial and error.

That's an argument in favor of tighter industry regulations. Not against conventional medicine. Try again. As far as better documentation, I'm failing to see how anyone can dispute that peer reviewed studies are superior to "word of mouth home remedies".

What are you going to defend the AMA under Fishbein going after the chriopractors, as quacks too? Don't be such a useful idiot for the AMA.

I'm not sure what the fuck you're trying to argue here. If you're trying to say peer reviewed clinical trials are bad you're going about a really shitty way of doing so.

[Graeme Dice]

The thing is these traditional treatments have been around for hundreds of years, things that can emerge tend to in that kind of time frame.

So what? This is an utterly worthless claim. It's nothing more than arguing that something which is traditional is good only because it's traditional. The chinese have been giving themselves mercury poisoning with cinnabar for a long time, so that must mean that it's safe.

What are you going to defend the AMA under Fishbein going after the chriopractors, as quacks too?

Why not? Most chiropractors _are_ quacks despite the fact that they offer a somewhat useful service.

[Justforfun000]

General Zod Wrote:

Since when is "Caveat Emptor" a valid ethical position? If anything it's the single worst way to run the medical industry specifically because of cases like these.

This has nothing to do with running the medical industry. To start off, the sheer number of branches are VAST. There is preventative medicine, intervention, chronic illness management, acute treatment, and so forth.

We are discussing alternative forms of medicine that may not have the weight of evidence behind them in comparison to conventional. This does NOT by default make them A) worthless, or B)inferior. It simply means that they are unverified.

Caveat Emptor is just going to have to be part and parcel of the right to choose other forms of medical and/or nutritional modalities. People SHOULD be responsible for learning everything they can about their individual health and by extension, anything they are self-administering.

No one is disputing that conventional medicine is the gold standard in treatment choice when it demonstrates a clear efficacy by double-blind clinical studies. But there are many conditions it is NOT so effective at. Going back to the liver, there are no "drugs" out there that are being sold as a liver tonic per se. Metadoxine and Milk Thistle show promising results in relation to many ailments of the liver, and lo and behold, you have to buy them as supplements. Now I'd be in complete agreement with you that a label should NOT be allowed to so "Cures liver problems and enhances detoxification".

That's far too strong a statement and they can't prove it. However it would be reasonable to say "Milk thistle has been traditionally used for centuries as a liver tonic and preliminary research suggests a liver protective effect. These claims are not currently verified by the FDA"

See how simple that is? That's being honest, still gives a general clue of what it's usefulness might be, and allows the consumer to make a choice if they wish to try said product. Without it being offered, they HAVE no choice.

As I've stated before, many people in my immediate family and friends within their circle have taken some of these liver compounds and have shown definite improvement in function, AST & ALT enzyme tests, improved cholesterol, etc.

It is very reasonable to attribute this to the compunds they are taking when all of them have responded identically. Still, it's not a "clinical study" so it can't be used as proof. Doesn't matter to these people. It's how it works for themthat matters and their ability to choose it as a treatment that matters and I believe that they as well as myself, should have EVERY right to choose purchasing this product.

[General Zod]

We are discussing alternative forms of medicine that may not have the weight of evidence behind them in comparison to conventional. This does NOT by default make them A) worthless, or B)inferior. It simply means that they are unverified.

Where exactly did I claim otherwise? But let's face it, if the conventional method is shown to be more useful at treating something than its "traditional" counterpart, then yes, the traditional version is in fact inferior.

Caveat Emptor is just going to have to be part and parcel of the right to choose other forms of medical and/or nutritional modalities. People SHOULD be responsible for learning everything they can about their individual health and by extension, anything they are self-administering.

Not everyone has the time or ability to do this, which is why we have Doctors; and frankly why we need tight regulations in the first place. To protect people who don't otherwise have the time to look up all the relevant details.

As I've stated before, many people in my immediate family and friends within their circle have taken some of these liver compounds and have shown definite improvement in function, AST & ALT enzyme tests, improved cholesterol, etc.

It is very reasonable to attribute this to the compunds they are taking when all of them have responded identically. Still, it's not a "clinical study" so it can't be used as proof. Doesn't matter to these people. It's how it works for themthat matters and their ability to choose it as a treatment that matters and I believe that they as well as myself, should have EVERY right to choose purchasing this product.

Why are you still arguing like I'm trying to claim they shouldn't have the right to purchase it?

[Justforfun000]

I'm a little confused why we still seem at odds here Zod...it seems like you agree with me in general as to where to draw the line, but still it seems like you have just a little extra of an axe to grind against using alternative medicine. I'm trying to figure out where you completely stand, and i admit I'm a little baffled..

Ok, lessee..

Where exactly did I claim otherwise? But let's face it, if the conventional method is shown to be more useful at treating something than its "traditional" counterpart, then yes, the traditional version is in fact inferior.

Fair enough, but you do understand that there are very few actual studies that are funded to actually determine if conventional is superior to an alternative, no? Usually it's just up in the air because the studies aren't being done.

I would HOPE most people would have sense enough to take the tried and true conventional method with the most support first and foremost and use alternative medicine as a complimentary therapy. This seems to be the best of both worlds, and indeed many are doing exactly that with generally positive outcomes that I have read about.

Not everyone has the time or ability to do this, which is why we have Doctors; and frankly why we need tight regulations in the first place. To protect people who don't otherwise have the time to look up all the relevant details.

Then these people should be more cautious in dealing with their health, and should default general opinions on what's best for them to their doctor. If they can't take the time to research whatever efficacy might be there to suggest therapeutic value behind an alternative method, then they probably shouldn't be dabbling in the first place. But this is an individual choice. It's why we have to leave the course open to consumer decisions and not have it controlled or worse still, outright banned, (by organizations that might have a bias towards drugs as an example), due to lack of "proper" research.

Of course in an ideal world they would be gung ho at verifying everything with good quality studies, but well...you know what it's like.

Why are you still arguing like I'm trying to claim they shouldn't have the right to purchase it?

I'm not sure either. You say you agree with that, but then it seems like you keep giving reasons why their opinions and choices as patients should not be relevant because of the perceived lack of education and ability to grasp medical science and the critical thinking that should (ideally) come along with it.

But as I said in the beginning of this post, I think we essentially agree. Lets determine what you think is the best path.

You seem to agree that we should be able to purchase herbal remedies for self-treatment and also engage in therapies that are alternative like acupuncture, chiropractic, etc.

You also agree that they should be very carefully regulated as to what they can and cannot claim.

Besides these two distinctive points, what else would you suggest to tighten it up a bit?

[Justforfun000]

Graeme Dice Wrote:

Why not? Most chiropractors _are_ quacks despite the fact that they offer a somewhat useful service.

I've seen quite a few chiropractors in my time and my personal experience has been extremely positive with them, but I have heard this criticism leveled towards them quite a bit over the years. I haven't delved into the nitty-gritty arguments over their reputability in many years, so i'm a little rusty on where they actually stand, but I was under the impression that they were largely vindicated for their treatment modality, and it was more the exaggeration of efficacy in cases of nerve impingement and how this could interfere with proper functioning of organs and tissues that the spinal nerve branches supplied that was criticized as fringe... Can you elaborate?

[PainRack]

We are discussing alternative forms of medicine that may not have the weight of evidence behind them in comparison to conventional. This does NOT by default make them A) worthless, or B)inferior. It simply means that they are unverified.

I think what Zod is trying to say is that alternative medicine must be run through the gamut of science before you should say, hey, it works, you can take it. You know, regulation and registration....

That's a policy discussion about regulation and marketing....... Frankly, I agree with him because of a conservative methodology. Well, first do no harm and if it ain't broken, don't touch it.

But there are many conditions it is NOT so effective at. Going back to the liver, there are no "drugs" out there that are being sold as a liver tonic per se.

Do we have to go through this again?
Stop trying to redefine drugs. And for god sake, you appear to be suggesting that herbal and alternative therapies have lesser or no side effects. To use that Chinese horny weed you talk about, I know people who took it and complain of heart palpitations. That's a side effect.

And we have the documented proof of side effects for glucosamine and senna as it is.
Ultimately, we're dealing with CHEMICALS. Biochemicals, physical chemicals, whatever. Chemicals, an electron here, hydrogen bonding there and whatever.

It is very reasonable to attribute this to the compunds they are taking when all of them have responded identically. Still, it's not a "clinical study" so it can't be used as proof. Doesn't matter to these people. It's how it works for themthat matters and their ability to choose it as a treatment that matters and I believe that they as well as myself, should have EVERY right to choose purchasing this product.

The problem is product safety. If it was Me, would argue that you need to license and register such products first before you can market it.

[PainRack]

I've seen quite a few chiropractors in my time and my personal experience has been extremely positive with them, but I have heard this criticism leveled towards them quite a bit over the years. I haven't delved into the nitty-gritty arguments over their reputability in many years, so i'm a little rusty on where they actually stand, but I was under the impression that they were largely vindicated for their treatment modality, and it was more the exaggeration of efficacy in cases of nerve impingement and how this could interfere with proper functioning of organs and tissues that the spinal nerve branches supplied that was criticized as fringe... Can you elaborate?

Because manipulating bones and nerves does nothing to heal disease. Even for issues such as back pain and the like, the theory isn't supported by the science, and thus needs a major review even if the methods do work.

[General Zod]

Because manipulating bones and nerves does nothing to heal disease. Even for issues such as back pain and the like, the theory isn't supported by the science, and thus needs a major review even if the methods do work.

Chiropractic has some success in dealing with lower back pain. But afaik it's largely been supplanted with sports medicine and physical therapy given how much of Chiropractic theory is bullshit.

[Justforfun000]

Pain Rack Wrote:

I think what Zod is trying to say is that alternative medicine must be run through the gamut of science before you should say, hey, it works, you can take it. You know, regulation and registration....

That's a policy discussion about regulation and marketing....... Frankly, I agree with him because of a conservative methodology. Well, first do no harm and if it ain't broken, don't touch it.

Well you have the right to your viewpoint of course, but others who wish to experiment based on their own reponsibility should have the right to do so. That's the main point I'm professing here.

"If it ain't broken, don't fix it", is only applicable if conventional methods always HAVE the best option on the table. Many times they don't. Many times they don't have anything to offer at all.

Do we have to go through this again?
Stop trying to redefine drugs. And for god sake, you appear to be suggesting that herbal and alternative therapies have lesser or no side effects. To use that Chinese horny weed you talk about, I know people who took it and complain of heart palpitations. That's a side effect.

It's not redefining drugs. I understand your point in regards to chemicals, but the research to date supports the idea that in GENERAL herbs are milder in effect as well as side effects, but that might be the trade-off for something with enough efficacy to be therapeutic and not problematic in terms of unwanted toxicity.

If you want to argue this in a more specific case, then tackle my example of the Ortho-Liver formula I mentioned above. Just one of the ingredients, Metadoxine, has some very well researched studies behind it and it's mixed with other substances (herbs mostly) that are only available currently as an herbal supplement. Do you have a pharmaceutical that can replace this? If not, then how can you argue against this being a valid choice for people who choose to take it for what it's worth?

Fair enough with the Horny Goat Weed, (and I love the name.. ), but as the article itself said, it again was typical of many other herbal based products that are currently being used either in it's natural state, or slightly modified purification form that are demonstrating comparable efficacy with fewer sides. You can't keep dismissing this by just claiming "THEY ARE ALL JUST CHEMICALS IN THE END.."..the evidence is not supporting that as being necessarily true. Ultimately, it all depends.

The problem is product safety. If it was Me, would argue that you need to license and register such products first before you can market it.

Well what is the standard you feel is necessary? The company AOR has some very impressive credentials in reference to their products and the science behind them. They may be less then the millions of dollars necessary to market them as a pharmaceutical, but they are far from worthless. Technically here in Canada, they have ALREADY passed your criteria because they have passed those tests, because if I'm not mistaken all supplements have to apply for a DIN number..but I may be mistaken in this...I'll have to do some more research on that end.

In any case though, fuck..we sell things that are definitely HARMFUL without any concern as to it's medical effect. Who the hell could market Coca Cola as "healthy"? Let alone something like alcohol..these are choices we make as adults and if we're allowed to poison ourselves with bottles of Gin week to week, why should the government have the right to restrict our access to products like herbs that might very well have real health promoting properties? It'd be more then hypocritical to do this.

[General Zod]

In any case though, fuck..we sell things that are definitely HARMFUL without any concern as to it's medical effect. Who the hell could market Coca Cola as "healthy"? Let alone something like alcohol..these are choices we make as adults and if we're allowed to poison ourselves with bottles of Gin week to week, why should the government have the right to restrict our access to products like herbs that might very well have real health promoting properties? It'd be more then hypocritical to do this.

There's a difference between marketing something as doing something it can't, and marketing something that's not necessarily good for you in large amounts as. . .something that's not necessarily good for you in large amounts. You're trying to compare apples to oranges here.

[Justforfun000]

Because manipulating bones and nerves does nothing to heal disease.

Now THAT comment I would take strong issue with. You have no right to make such a definitive statement, and no medical researcher worth their salt would either. The facet of Chiropractic that deals with neuropathic concern may be in it's infancy in the sense of clinical studies verifying that branch, but disease, (or dis-ease, which is really the simplest breakdown of the term and encompasses many disorders of the human body), is an extremely complex thing and, nerve impulses emanating from the spine, the brachial plexus, etc.. are NOT irrelevant. They could very well be a causative or contributing factor to many diseases. It's just a very poorly understood and woefully understudied facet of medicine.

Back in the days when there were actual physicians of different makeups that included people like Neuropaths, there was a lot more knowledge that was on the table before the mainstream conventional doctors became the one and only camp. Everything else was tossed out the window, and the knowledge lost was staggering. People like you would undoubtedly argue that they just tossed out the shit and concentrated on what was worthwhile, but that would be an assumption, not a definite fact.

Drugs changed the entire paradigm of medicine, and many therapies that practiced more integrative care of many different modalities were simply ignored and shoved to the wayside. They weren't disproved, they were simply IGNORED.

In the long run it's a grand thing that we evolved into the current evidence based system we have, but there are still some potential treatments that could be therapeutic that have yet to be verified.

[Justforfun000]

There's a difference between marketing something as doing something it can't, and marketing something that's not necessarily good for you in large amounts as. . .something that's not necessarily good for you in large amounts. You're trying to compare apples to oranges here.

Not really. I've already agreed with you on the issue of what you should be allowed to market as efficacious. I'm just trying to make the point, (more to Pain Rack now then you after the most current comments..), that if we as adults and consumers are allowed to choose definite HARMFUL substances for our own reasons, which in this particular example is nothing more then a vice...then it'd be ridiculous to say you couldn't access an herbal remedy that MIGHT be helpful, but is up in the air as far as medical science goes.

[General Zod]

Now THAT comment I would take strong issue with. You have no right to make such a definitive statement, and no medical researcher worth their salt would either. The facet of Chiropractic that deals with neuropathic concern may be in it's infancy in the sense of clinical studies verifying that branch, but disease, (or dis-ease, which is really the simplest breakdown of the term and encompasses many disorders of the human body), is an extremely complex thing and, nerve impulses emanating from the spine, the brachial plexus, etc.. are NOT irrelevant. They could very well be a causative or contributing factor to many diseases. It's just a very poorly understood and woefully understudied facet of medicine.

Chiropractic has been around since 1890. If something has been around as long as that, it would have medical testing to verify the claims that it treats disease. But so far pretty much every study shows that it's only really useful in treating lower back pain.

Not really. I've already agreed with you on the issue of what you should be allowed to market as efficacious. I'm just trying to make the point, (more to Pain Rack now then you after the most current comments..), that if we as adults and consumers are allowed to choose definite HARMFUL substances for our own reasons, which in this particular example is nothing more then a vice...then it'd be ridiculous to say you couldn't access an herbal remedy that MIGHT be helpful, but is up in the air as far as medical science goes.

What exactly does this have to do with anything at all I just wrote? My point, yet again, was saying nothing about what people can choose. It was about what is being advertised.

[Justforfun000]

Chiropractic has been around since 1890. If something has been around as long as that, it would have medical testing to verify the claims that it treats disease. But so far pretty much every study shows that it's only really useful in treating lower back pain.

They branched off and decided to focus solely on manipulation and pain related issues, basically relating to function...they used to be a bit broader in the approach.

What exactly does this have to do with anything at all I just wrote? My point, yet again, was saying nothing about what people can choose. It was about what is being advertised.

Nothing. Like I said, I was really speaking to Pain Rack. We're on the same page with this as far as I can see..we believe in serious restrictions as to what they can profess, but still allowing access to treatment regardless of proof.