Ridiculous cost of clinical trials hinder new bug repellant

[Justforfun000]

Do you have any arguments that don't ultimately boil down to this ridiculous false dilemma of "right to choose"? Maybe you're not familiar with DDT's rather nasty history. This is why pesticides have to be put through vigorous testing.

Oh for...stop trivializing my arguments by such ridiculous comparisons! You're contrasting a PESTICIDE against herbal supplements and vitaminlike substances that have had hundreds of years of traditional use with little to no evidence of toxicity for the most part and then verified even MORESO in these preliminary clinical trials. As the example I just listed above, Metadoxine has a 15 year safety record.

I'm starting to feel it's a waste of time arguing my points here because too many of you are just too biased against this subject. Ultimately I'm glad the consensus of this board isn't in control of my legal right to shop at my local health food store.

[General Zod]

Oh for...stop trivializing my arguments by such ridiculous comparisons! You're contrasting a PESTICIDE against herbal supplements and vitaminlike substances that have had hundreds of years of traditional use with little to no evidence of toxicity for the most part and then verified even MORESO in these preliminary clinical trials. As the example I just listed above, Metadoxine has a 15 year safety record.

Then you clearly missed the point. Without extremely thorough clinical trials and studies we can't possibly know of any secondary side effects, even if it's typically thought to be "safe" on humans, regardless of all the appeal to tradition arguments you like.

I'm starting to feel it's a waste of time arguing my points here because too many of you are just too biased against this subject. Ultimately I'm glad the consensus of this board isn't in control of my legal right to shop at my local health food store.

Either something is an effective treatment or it's not. The entire notion of "alternative" treatments is quite frankly downright ridiculous and even offensive.

[Justforfun000]

The problem is that without rigorous testing how will we, the consumers, know if the results are accurate and not simply flukes of anomalies? Without rigorous testing how will we, know that a study has completely analyzed the effects a chemical or a drug (or, yes, a herb) will have on different groups of a population, i.e. how it will affect males and females, young people and old people, people with preexisting conditions such as diabetes or cancer?

By all means, we should ultimately do rigorous testing of everything promising. The issue here is perceived ratio of harm vs. benefit when dealing with substances people want to be able to use NOW. Not 20 years in the future when they finally get the billions of dollars together to finally prove 1 thing at a time and give it the "pharmaceutical" stamp of approval. Maybe some people don't want to wait until they're 75 and say "Shit, I knew it was likely going to be a good thing..to bad I didn't sart taking it anyway. Maybe I wouldn't have ended up with Cirrhosis if I had taken that liver supplement. My bad."

Denigrate it all you want, but the fact remains that before medical science today, traditional medicine was all that was out there and while undoubtedly SOME things were bad ideas like mercury, many things were useful and continue to remain so. Does it escape people's notice here that countless times when they actually put herbal medicines to the test they tend to find that ..what a shock...they actually tend to show promise for the conditions people had been using them for, for centuries? Ginseng has been reputed to be good for overall energy and fatigue and what have they found? It seems to bear out. I've come across many studies that have put it to the test and the results look promising. The problem is they are always small studies and it comes down to the problem that no company seems to be willing to come forward and shell out the BIG bucks for the more comprehensive and VERY expensive trials necessary for pharmaceutical standards. You cannot patent herbs, so there is no financial incentive to corner the market on them. You could spend all the money on research and any other company could come forward and sell the same product, and even better, with claims of efficacy.

Just as a random example of some studies regarding Ginseng:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... ntent;col1

A double-blind, placebo-controlled eight-week study examined the immune effects of 100 mg Ginsana[R] (G115), 100 mg liquid ginseng extract, or placebo twice daily in 60 healthy volunteers. Blood samples collected at baseline, week four, and week eight examined polymorphonuclear (PMN) cell chemotaxis, phagocytosis, total lymphocytes, T-helper and T-suppressor cells, and NK-cell activity. The groups receiving ginseng experienced consistent improvement in immune system activity at week four and statistically significant differences at week eight, evidenced by improvements in PMN cell chemotaxis, phagocytosis, and total number of T-helper and T-suppressor cells. The authors concluded ginseng extract stimulates the immune system and the standardized extract is more effective than the liquid ginseng extract. (13)
Some of the same researchers examined the effects of Panax ginseng extract on the immune response to vaccination. The multicenter, 12-week, double-blind RCT compared immune response in 227 participants, measured as NK-cell activity, at weeks eight and 12, post influenza vaccine given at week four. The treatment group received 100 mg G115 twice daily. NK-cell activity for the ginseng group was double that of the placebo group (p<0.0001) at weeks eight and 12. Serum antibody titers were 272 units in the ginseng group compared to 171 units in the placebo group. A significant decrease in the frequency of upper respiratory infections during weeks 4-12 was noted in the treatment group compared to placebo; 15 cases versus 42 cases, respectively. This study supports the role of ginseng in immune system modulation. (14)

An RCT compared the effects of red Panax ginseng on HIV-1 infected patients (n=61). (15) The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of red Panax ginseng after accounting for HLA type (I or II and class A, B, and C), on CD4 counts, CD8 counts, and the trend toward decreased resistance to antiretroviral drugs. HLA type can be associated with an improved prognosis in HIV patients, based on an algorithm that also predicts risk of disease progression. (16)

The treatment group received 5.4 g red Panax ginseng daily. Blood samples were taken from the control group (n=199) and HIV-1 infected patients every six months throughout the study. Data analysis revealed an inverse correlation between the HLA score and the decrease of CD4 T cells over time, a decrease in the decline of CD4 T cells associated with the intake of red Panax ginseng, and a significant (p<0.05) decline of CD4 T cells, independent of the HLA class I effects on immune system cells. The authors concluded that red Panax ginseng and HLA type independently affect the slow depletion of CD4 T cells in HIV-infected patients.

[General Zod]

By all means, we should ultimately do rigorous testing of everything promising. The issue here is perceived ratio of harm vs. benefit when dealing with substances people want to be able to use NOW. Not 20 years in the future when they finally get the billions of dollars together to finally prove 1 thing at a time and give it the "pharmaceutical" stamp of approval. Maybe some people don't want to wait until they're 75 and say "Shit, I knew it was likely going to be a good thing..to bad I didn't sart taking it anyway. Maybe I wouldn't have ended up with Cirrhosis if I had taken that liver supplement. My bad."

Then they can just as well wait if it really is a good thing and not some bullshit snakeoil being peddled.

Denigrate it all you want, but the fact remains that before medical science today, traditional medicine was all that was out there and while undoubtedly SOME things were bad ideas like mercury, many things were useful and continue to remain so. Does it escape people's notice here that countless times when they actually put herbal medicines to the test they tend to find that ..what a shock...they actually tend to show promise for the conditions people had been using them for, for centuries? Ginseng has been reputed to be good for overall energy and fatigue and what have they found? It seems to bear out. I've come across many studies that have put it to the test and the results look promising. The problem is they are always small studies and it comes down to the problem that no company seems to be willing to come forward and shell out the BIG bucks for the more comprehensive and VERY expensive trials necessary for pharmaceutical standards. You cannot patent herbs, so there is no financial incentive to corner the market on them. You could spend all the money on research and any other company could come forward and sell the same product, and even better, with claims of efficacy.

Before medical science today snake oil peddlers were a dime a dozen and would prescribe all kinds of bullshit as a cure whether or not it actually worked. Denigrate it all you want but the fact remains that rigorous testing will keep most of these idiots out of the markets. Maybe you haven't noticed but modern medicine has overtaken traditional medicine because it is superior in virtually every single facet.

[Alyrium Denryle]

That is what sets herbal medicine apart from pharmaceuticals and the treatment of disease. Many of them suggest preventative and health promoting benefits. Drugs are not generally designed that way, they are more for specific treatment of ailments.

Bullshit. Preventing an ailment and treating an ailment require certain chemical reactions, which need to be evaluated. If anything, herbal medicine should be regulated more. Why? Because herbal crap is less pure, they have a higher potential for adverse drug chemical interactions.

I think it's a little unfair to dismiss the findings just because they aren't as rigourously tested as a pharmaceutical. If they work exactly as they SEEM to evidence in the studies they ran, then they are still beneficial and I still feel I should have a right to choose to use it.

Except you are not making an informed decision. You, in fact any lay person, does not have the capacity to make an informed choice when it comes to a medication, unless a doctor can let them know what the benefits and risks actually are (and even then it is questionable). If you cannotbe given those because the testing has not been done, you have no business making a decision.

For example one ingredient in the formula called Metadoxine has quite a bit of clinical evidence behind it and I'm actually surprised it's not well known and promoted by itself. Metadoxine is an ion-pair between pyrrolidon carboxilate (PCA) and pyridoxine (vit. B6) with the two compounds linked in a single product by salification.

And you have no idea what that means...

Do you really feel that these preliminary results can be so blithely dismissed as useless and people should not be able to use such a thing on their own volition?

Dismissed as useless? No. Dismissed as not suitable for use? Fuck yes.

Especially considering that their is NO indication of harm. That's the key point here. If there's no harm, and possible benefit, then why should it not be available and a valid choice for a consumer to benefit their health?

Because you Cant Know If there Is Harm or Real Benefit Because the Testing Has Not Been Done. Period. Sorry, but you lack the capacity to make those choices. Particularly because you are a retard that seems to not be able to even understand your lack of capacity.

Abstract

Small sample size, lacked positive control, treatment groups were not randomized, they did not test the psychiatric profiles between the treatment groups to see if they were statistically different, they used a chi squared test which is not a particularly good test given their data set, and you cherry picked the data you reported when you snipped the rest of the article to only measure compliance. The majority of pre and post-treatment measurements were non-significant.

Another reason why lay people should not be allowed to make decisions...

[Kaiser Caesar]

By all means, we should ultimately do rigorous testing of everything promising.

So we agree and this arguement should stop now.

The issue here is perceived ratio of harm vs. benefit when dealing with substances people want to be able to use NOW. Not 20 years in the future when they finally get the billions of dollars together to finally prove 1 thing at a time and give it the "pharmaceutical" stamp of approval.

Most medicines do not cost billions of dollers to research. Besides, I would much rather something have the "'pharmaceutical' stamp of approval" which shows that it has been carefully researched for all potential complications and side effects then be taking blind risks every time I start a new medicine.

Maybe some people don't want to wait until they're 75 and say "Shit, I knew it was likely going to be a good thing..to bad I didn't sart taking it anyway. Maybe I wouldn't have ended up with Cirrhosis if I had taken that liver supplement. My bad

.

??? Corporations aren't the same as people. One is a entity consisting of hundreds of people that must take careful steps to ensure their products (in this case, medicine) meet strict standards and will not cause complications and problems in people who use their products.

A person is someone who uses medicine that is perscribed to him by a doctor that has been shown to meet standards of approval.

Denigrate it all you want, but the fact remains that before medical science today, traditional medicine was all that was out there and while undoubtedly SOME things were bad ideas like mercury, many things were useful and continue to remain so.

Just because something has been used for a long time does not mean it is a good thing. Otherwise we would still be purging the "bad blood" from our body and using CFCs.

Does it escape people's notice here that countless times when they actually put herbal medicines to the test they tend to find that ..what a shock...they actually tend to show promise for the conditions people had been using them for, for centuries?

Once again, just because something has been used for in the past does not mean it work.

[Simon_Jester]

Out of curiosity: where do people who will probably die of something else anyway long before anyone gets around to doing extensive drug testing on a given substance fit into the picture?

If I have Alzheimers and expect to (literally) lose my mind some time in the next five years, and somebody goes on about how a couple of studies by reputable organizations indicate that the turmeric in curry powder has an anti-Alzheimers effect... I don't know about you, but I'd start acquiring a taste for curry.

What do I have to lose?
__________

And no, that doesn't extend to eating random herbs in the vague hope that "herbal == good," or even to assuming that the stuff people have been using to treat a condition for the past three hundred years actually works on some level. But it does seem to me that there's a class of people who have much more to gain from the (supposed) primary effect of a drug than they have to lose to the (possible, not yet nailed down) secondary effects.

[General Zod]

Out of curiosity: where do people who will probably die of something else anyway long before anyone gets around to doing extensive drug testing on a given substance fit into the picture?

If I have Alzheimers and expect to (literally) lose my mind some time in the next five years, and somebody goes on about how a couple of studies by reputable organizations indicate that the turmeric in curry powder has an anti-Alzheimers effect... I don't know about you, but I'd start acquiring a taste for curry.

What do I have to lose?
__________

And no, that doesn't extend to eating random herbs in the vague hope that "herbal == good," or even to assuming that the stuff people have been using to treat a condition for the past three hundred years actually works on some level. But it does seem to me that there's a class of people who have much more to gain from the (supposed) primary effect of a drug than they have to lose to the (possible, not yet nailed down) secondary effects.

Since this doesn't have anything to do with what anyone in this thread is saying, they don't fit anywhere in the picture.

[Justforfun000]

Fine. I give up this argument. I totally disagree with Aly in regards to my capacity to make my own decisions based on what limited research there is. I respect his field of study and he's entitled to his opinion and I suppose anyone with in depth training would be much more inclined to be cautious and hold things to higher standard. I however feel that some things are worth using even if there's only light evidence so far. That's my opinion and my legal right of choice.

But there's little point me continuing the argument because the skepticism level is far too high on this subject. Basically there's a black and white side I'm seeing here. It's either I have to agree with everyone arguing against me that alternative medicine like herbs are something I should not have the right to purchase or even the assumption that I can make an informed choice on their potential merits, or I'm a tin-foiled hat idiot wasting my money and time by testing such potentially worthless and dangerous "crude chemicals" like herbs no matter how many centuries of use they may have demonstrated benefit or how many limited clinical studies have shown efficacy. I refuse to be thrust into either category because it's a black and white fallacy. There are many more possible and far less extreme points of views, but they obviously aren't popular here.

[Justforfun000]

Since this doesn't have anything to do with what anyone in this thread is saying, they don't fit anywhere in the picture.

Now if there was ever a quote that finally convinced me that I just have people contrary against me in this forum for some reason it's this. You know, I don't think anyone has EVER stood up for me or supported an argument I've made. At best, it was pure silence if I ever said anything which I guess means it "passed".

What he just said above is EXACTLY the same thing I've been saying and the fact that you don't see this just confirms that I'm being singled out. What the hell do you think curry is? An herb! What the hell do you think studies testing effects on diseases like Alzheimer's and the effect or curry is if not the same as a study testing Gingko Biloba on the same disease? Oh but his point is reasonable because it wasn't me that brought it up.

I'm outta here.

[General Zod]

Now if there was ever a quote that finally convinced me that I just have people contrary against me in this forum for some reason it's this. You know, I don't think anyone has EVER stood up for me or supported an argument I've made. At best, it was pure silence if I ever said anything which I guess means it "passed".

What he just said above is EXACTLY the same thing I've been saying and the fact that you don't see this just confirms that I'm being singled out. What the hell do you think curry is? An herb! What the hell do you think studies testing effects on diseases like Alzheimer's and the effect or curry is if not the same as a study testing Gingko Biloba on the same disease? Oh but his point is reasonable because it wasn't me that brought it up.

I'm outta here.

Where the fuck are you getting that I said it was reasonable? Are you having reading comprehension issues today? I said it didn't have anything to do with this thread, which is entirely different from saying it's reasonable. Turns out there's a difference between identifying things that are common in foods that might have some health benefits and using an "herbal remedy" being marketed entirely on its own as an alternative to regular medicine?

[Justforfun000]

Turns out there's a difference between identifying things that are common in foods that might have some health benefits and using an "herbal remedy" being marketed entirely on its own as an alternative to regular medicine?

Again. At the very least, an insinuating Strawman. Yes I'm all for throwing Alzheimer's meds out the window and buying curcumin capsules instead. It's far better, it's a safe herb and...see there's all these studies!

That's what everyone keeps trying to paint me in is in this idiotic extreme category when I've suggested no such thing. All I've said is I believe SOME herbs and vitaminlike substances have promising research that is sometimes even MORE then a little probable that they can do various preventative and health promoting properties to the body. Not really much different from how antioxidants are singled out in foods. But I can't even suggest this without unbelievable resistance to anything not verified by a pharmaceutical standard of quality for it being worthy of even consideration as a personal health choice. I disagree and am just thankful the law still protects my right to buy these things, because if everyone here had a vote I think I'd be barred from buying Garlic if I dared suggest I use it for anything but cooking.

[General Zod]

Turns out there's a difference between identifying things that are common in foods that might have some health benefits and using an "herbal remedy" being marketed entirely on its own as an alternative to regular medicine?

Again. At the very least, an insinuating Strawman. Yes I'm all for throwing Alzheimer's meds out the window and buying curcumin capsules instead. It's far better, it's a safe herb and...see there's all these studies!

That's what everyone keeps trying to paint me in is in this idiotic extreme category when I've suggested no such thing. All I've said is I believe SOME herbs and vitaminlike substances have promising research that is sometimes even MORE then a little probable that they can do various preventative and health promoting properties to the body. Not really much different from how antioxidants are singled out in foods. But I can't even suggest this without unbelievable resistance to anything not verified by a pharmaceutical standard of quality for it being worthy of even consideration as a personal health choice. I disagree and am just thankful the law still protects my right to buy these things, because if everyone here had a vote I think I'd be barred from buying Garlic if I dared suggest I use it for anything but cooking.

You see. . .it doesn't really help your position when you break down in histrionics and start screeching about people trying to forbid you from buying supplements every single time someone denounces alternative medicine as hokum. Wanting rigorous testing is a far cry from "removing our freedom of choice" the way you constantly try and paint it.

[Nephtys]

Justforfun000, I have never posted anything in response to anything you've made as far as I can remember, and I don't even remember your name from half the threads I read.

However, this entire line of argument doesn't show that you have enemies. It shows that you have flawed thinking, and don't realize what you're even saying. Clinical Testing exists because WE DONT KNOW WHAT KINDS OF THINGS can occur. There was Thalidomide, a sedative and anti-seizure drug in the 50s. Except since Clinical Trials weren't thoroughly conducted, it ends up the stuff causes horriffic birth defects, like kids without arms!

There's a reason testing exists, and it has to be expensive because it's expensive to conduct. Waving around 'traditional' medicine as being superior as a matter of gospel truth is a reckless and irrational stance, especially with your stunningly displayed ignorance of the subject matter.

You know what? If there are herbs with positive effects that outweigh other medicines, don't you think companies would study those, so they can extract the active ingredients, sell them and make money? That's precisely what they do.

[Justforfun000]

Wanting rigorous testing is a far cry from "removing our freedom of choice" the way you constantly try and paint it.

So then which is your choice? You can't have it both ways. You WOULD be removing my freedom of choice for these items if you insisted on the same standards as pharmaceuticals and they may NEVER see the light of day if no one gives a fuck and invests any money in them.

By all means. Put them through rigorous testing. But allow me to buy them while you're proving what I already feel there may be enough common sense evidence to expect the ultimate conclusion to be.

[General Zod]

So then which is your choice? You can't have it both ways. You WOULD be removing my freedom of choice for these items if you insisted on the same standards as pharmaceuticals and they may NEVER see the light of day if no one gives a fuck and invests any money in them.

By all means. Put them through rigorous testing. But allow me to buy them while you're proving what I already feel there may be enough common sense evidence to expect the ultimate conclusion to be.

So what's more important to you? An unlimited amount of choice, or the assurance that the drugs you're taking aren't going to wind up making you sterile in ten years?

[Knife]

Fine. I give up this argument. I totally disagree with Aly in regards to my capacity to make my own decisions based on what limited research there is.

this is the meat of the thread then. You, from this exchange, have zero experience and training in anything remotely attached to chemistry, biology and medicine; however, want to justify a position in regards to these disciplines when people in those positions are telling you that you are full of bull poop.

Medicines and other chemicals are expensive to test due to the fact that it may indeed do exactly what you want, but also fuck you up in another way you don't see coming. The only reliable way to determine that is the scientific method, which if you use to test something means you have to do it in various ways; ie: control, what you want to test, and all the other things it may fuck up. Put plainly, you have to test it all sorts of fucking ways and each test costs a shit load.

Companies do it, not only because of the law, but because they still recoup their costs in the end. Yes, it takes millions and billions to make a drug, yet they make tens of billions off of it, so that argument is nothing but a red herring.

I respect his field of study and he's entitled to his opinion and I suppose anyone with in depth training would be much more inclined to be cautious and hold things to higher standard. I however feel that some things are worth using even if there's only light evidence so far. That's my opinion and my legal right of choice.

Your legal choice to make, yet their legal choice to decide it's not in their legal interest to let you use your legal right to choose. You might say "What the fuck, I'll try it." Yet when you die, your relatives still have the legal right to sue their ass for it. Your legal right to choose is equal to the company's right to 'not give it to you so they don't get sued." I don't get this argument unless it's just a hissy fit.

But there's little point me continuing the argument because the skepticism level is far too high on this subject. Basically there's a black and white side I'm seeing here.

It's called self righteousness.

It's either I have to agree with everyone arguing against me that alternative medicine like herbs are something I should not have the right to purchase or even the assumption that I can make an informed choice on their potential merits,

lol. You don't have an 'informed choice'. That's the point. You are desperate for a 'quick fix' and buy into snake oil salesman shit and bitch when people try to point that out.

or I'm a tin-foiled hat idiot wasting my money and time by testing such potentially worthless and dangerous "crude chemicals" like herbs no matter how many centuries of use they may have demonstrated benefit or how many limited clinical studies have shown efficacy.

lol. You are wasting you time and money. Your 'right' to do so, our 'right' to tell you that you are a dumbshit to do so.

I refuse to be thrust into either category because it's a black and white fallacy. There are many more possible and far less extreme points of views, but they obviously aren't popular here.

Irony, thy name is Justforfun. People are giving you points of view, you are refusing to listen to them due to nothing short of your unrealistic fear. The world is complex. Medicine is complex. Newsflash, your body is complex. Ingesting compounds, even from plants and animals, to make a pharmaceutical effect, is complex. To test and understand what every compound you want to consume for an effect, costs a shit load of money.

[Justforfun000]

Well even if I'm overreacting and I'm just at odds with people on this issue, I don't understand why everyone keeps strawmanning my position to a far greater extreme than I am saying.

However, this entire line of argument doesn't show that you have enemies. It shows that you have flawed thinking, and don't realize what you're even saying. Clinical Testing exists because WE DONT KNOW WHAT KINDS OF THINGS can occur. There was Thalidomide, a sedative and anti-seizure drug in the 50s. Except since Clinical Trials weren't thoroughly conducted, it ends up the stuff causes horriffic birth defects, like kids without arms!

I'm well aware of this and naturally this is a very important issue when dealing with potent designer drugs. These are a completely different ball of wax then the majority of herbs like Milk Thistle, Ginseng, Gingkgo Biloba, etc. etc. Don't you think any serious issues would already have been noticed? That's why the government doesn't hold them to as high a standard when it comes to levels of safety because they already HAVE a history of use that suggests at the very least a benign nature. There ARE herbs or plants like Foxglove that they make Digitalis from, comfrey and other various things that they do NOT recommend because they believe or know them to be toxic and/or dangerous.

Again, I am not saying we shouldn't DO any serious studies of these things, but I believe certain herbals are in a class fit for exemption due to demonstrated history of safety, at least as far as you being able to grow or purchase them for personal use. I have never said we shouldn't HAVE these exacting standards or bother to use them on herbals, but it takes time and money and I think they should be available and appreciated for what they appear to offer now even though it's of limited proof yet.

There's a reason testing exists, and it has to be expensive because it's expensive to conduct. Waving around 'traditional' medicine as being superior as a matter of gospel truth is a reckless and irrational stance, especially with your stunningly displayed ignorance of the subject matter.

See? Strawmanned again. Point out anywhere I said traditional medicine was superior. I'm getting tired of this. Isn't it against the board policy to be continually misrepresented by strawmanning?

You know what? If there are herbs with positive effects that outweigh other medicines, don't you think companies would study those, so they can extract the active ingredients, sell them and make money? That's precisely what they do.

Sometimes, yes. But certain herbs do not seem to work when they "isolate" what they think is the active ingredient. Many times they have tried this and discovered that it didn't work the same as the more crude form and they theorize that there are many co-constituents that are necessary to have it work effectively and so they started standardizing the whole herbs for certain LEVELS of "active" ingredients...like Milk Thistle being standardized for 80% Silymarin, or Gingko Biloba for 24% ginkgo flavones, 6% terpens as just two examples.

So these herbs simply do NOT all into the same category as an isolated and purified active ingredient that is developed into a pharmaceutical drug.

[Justforfun000]

So what's more important to you? An unlimited amount of choice, or the assurance that the drugs you're taking aren't going to wind up making you sterile in ten years?

If I considered Garlic or Ginseng a drug, you might have a point. i don't.

[Knife]

So what's more important to you? An unlimited amount of choice, or the assurance that the drugs you're taking aren't going to wind up making you sterile in ten years?

If I considered Garlic or Ginseng a drug, you might have a point. i don't.

Until those expensive studies show they cause a disease worse than the thing you are trying to cure.

[General Zod]

So what's more important to you? An unlimited amount of choice, or the assurance that the drugs you're taking aren't going to wind up making you sterile in ten years?

If I considered Garlic or Ginseng a drug, you might have a point. i don't.

LOL. Speaking of strawmen. . .

[Justforfun000]

Knife Wrote:

lol. You don't have an 'informed choice'. That's the point. You are desperate for a 'quick fix' and buy into snake oil salesman shit and bitch when people try to point that out.

lol. You are wasting you time and money. Your 'right' to do so, our 'right' to tell you that you are a dumbshit to do so.

Bullshit. You prove that the herbs are worthless and that the promising studies have no value. Then you can make those statements as anything other than a personal guess of an opinion.

[Justforfun000]

LOL. Speaking of strawmen. . .

How is that a Strawman? I said if I considered it a drug. Wouldn't I have had to say something against your position to strawman you? They aren't drugs. Your point wasn't a valid comparison.

[Knife]

Bullshit. You prove that the herbs are worthless and that the promising studies have no value. Then you can make those statements as anything other than a personal guess of an opinion.

lol, I don't have to. Poison and medicine are in the dose dumbass. Medicine that can help you can hurt you in excess. Try again kiddo.

edit for typo

[Justforfun000]

lol, I don't have to. Poison and medicine are in the dose dumbass. Medicine that can help you can hurt you in excess. Try again kiddo.

And this has what to do with my point exactly? No shit Sherlock. You can die from too much water. How is that even remotely relevant to my point?