Ridiculous cost of clinical trials hinder new bug repellant

[General Zod]

A number of studies have shown diets with foods high in Omega 3 fatty acids help with lowering risk of heart disease, though.

So? There are a number of studies about herbs too, but you're ignoring all of those because they aren't FDA approved. By that logic, all of this Omega-3 stuff is just whoo-whoo anti-science quackery too.

I don't remember saying anything about FDA approval?

[Stark]

It's pretty sad that even though you've stepped back to 'suggestive of benefit', you still posted an article that's 75% irrelevant. I mean, 'we gave it to 160 people with jaundice and 101 were cured'? Dear me. It's a product marketing blurb, not research or evidence; it refers peripherally to other research which is unverifiable.

[Justforfun000]

PS JFF, pointing out systemic flaws in testing (financial, etc) doesn't mean someone is agreeing with your ridiculous 'obviously it's safe' 'damn likely it works' statements. Stop thinking tribally; Mike isn't on 'your side of the fence' because he's 'anti-testing'; he's simply raising relevant issues to the discussion.

Excuse me, but I also pointed out those SAME issues, but they were conveniently ignored because you were more interested in attacking my other points. Go back and re-read!

He'll be on your side when he sticks his fingers in his ears and says 'I know it works waaaah'.

And again you have to strawman me to paint me as an extremist. I have made pains to post quite clearly that I'm aware it does NOT constitute "proof", I simply posited that it is not WORTHLESS and is in individual cases very suggestive when it passes a certain bar of proof in biochemistry of the individual when you rule out the placebo effect as just part of my example. But in your haste to continually prop me up on a pole with a painted sign saying "tinfoil hat moron", you conveniently keep ignoring what I'm REALLY saying even though I suspect your far too intelligent to not understand me or my points. I think you're just being contentious because of a bias on this issue, but THAT is only an opinion I have no supporting facts for other then your knee-jerk hostile responses to me.

[Darth Wong]

A number of studies have shown diets with foods high in Omega 3 fatty acids help with lowering risk of heart disease, though.

So? There are a number of studies about herbs too, but you're ignoring all of those because they aren't FDA approved. By that logic, all of this Omega-3 stuff is just whoo-whoo anti-science quackery too.

I don't remember saying anything about FDA approval?

You say "There's a reason people who self medicate are made fun of. Unless you're a doctor then you aren't going to properly understand all the effects involved or necessarily all of the consequences of doing so." You're obviously referring specifically to prescription drugs, which do in fact exclude all health studies not relating to an FDA-approved product. Including Omega-3 fatty acids.

[Stark]

Excuse me, but I also pointed out those SAME issues, but they were conveniently ignored because you were more interested in attacking my other points. Go back and re-read!

Sadly, those points didn't help your argument.

And again you have to strawman me to paint me as an extremist. I have made pains to post quite clearly that I'm aware it does NOT constitute "proof", I simply posited that it is not WORTHLESS and is in individual cases very suggestive when it passes a certain bar of proof in biochemistry of the individual when you rule out the placebo effect as just part of my example. But in your haste to continually prop me up on a pole with a painted sign saying "tinfoil hat moron", you conveniently keep ignoring what I'm REALLY saying even though I suspect your far too intelligent to not understand me or my points. I think you're just being contentious because of a bias on this issue, but THAT is only an opinion I have no supporting facts for other then your knee-jerk hostile responses to me.

Frankly your posting on this issue seems pretty inconsistent - you quickly become defensive, emotional and rely on personal authority or anecdotes, while at the same time CLAIMING you know it's not proof etc. You've even now switched to using vague language to avoid criticism, which is only a step in the rigth direction if you actually understand what was wrong with your attitude.

[Justforfun000]

It's pretty sad that even though you've stepped back to 'suggestive of benefit', you still posted an article that's 75% irrelevant. I mean, 'we gave it to 160 people with jaundice and 101 were cured'? Dear me. It's a product marketing blurb, not research or evidence; it refers peripherally to other research which is unverifiable.

Remember back at the beginning when I originally referenced this company and I specifically went out of my way to show individual links to searches on supportive research? I know a company's own publicity is questionable in many respects. As I said, I posted it for the hell of it so at least you could have a comprehensive look at the product.

And if I'm not mistaken, do they not reference the mentioned studies below in the postscripts? I don't believe that was the AOR company and their product, I think it was a statement from the clinical study...but I'm not certain. I wasn't posting it as anything other then information relevant to my reference to the product.

In any event, if this was TRUE it would be extremely significant and I sure as hell would feel a hell of a lot more inclined to tip my hat towards the likelihood of it being very liver supportive. I mean, you do see why it makes sense to link results like major improvement in people's health that are extremely unlikely to occur by spontaneous remission with the probability that with that kind of percentage of improvement, the substance is actually quite efficacious?

[Erik von Nein]

Justforfun is saying some stupid things, but let's keep in mind that the way drugs are currently approved, the system does discriminate against anything which can't be patented. Without patentability, no company has the incentive to spend the money necessary to get approval and bring the product to market. Companies are tasked with doing their own testing (let's ignore the conspicuous conflict of interest in this concept for now), so any company which forked over a million dollars to win approval for some non-patentable therapy would simply end up losing a million dollars while its competitors could freely market and sell the same product once it's approved.

True, but aren't compounds in plants something that can be patented? Such things as Aspirin were patented, and it's active ingredient is entirely plant-based. If not the compounds themselves then the extraction method assuredly.

[Stark]

In any event, if this was TRUE it would be extremely significant and I sure as hell would feel a hell of a lot more inclined to tip my hat towards the likelihood of it being very liver supportive. I mean, you do see why it makes sense to link results like major improvement in people's health that are extremely unlikely to occur by spontaneous remission with the probability that with that kind of percentage of improvement, the substance is actually quite efficacious?

Jesus christ. This is what I mean by 'inconsistent'. Have you even read this study?

[Darth Wong]

True, but aren't compounds in plants something that can be patented? Such things as Aspirin were patented, and it's active ingredient is entirely plant-based. If not the compounds themselves then the extraction method assuredly.

Yes, but that evades the point. A lot of people would prefer to get these substances from plants in their diet as teas or spices (or even food ingredients) even if they are less effective per-dose than a purified pharmaceutical drug would be. A lot of people don't actually like the idea of using high-strength drugs at all, and not entirely without cause: high-strength drugs tend to have high-strength side effects.

Of course, that takes us to the potential side-effects of food, which are enormously varied. But we don't call for food producers to be regulated as if they were selling pharmaceutical drugs. Such a thing would be unreasonable for many reasons.

I'll give you an example: peppermint tea. Peppermint tea is considered an herbal therapy by many. There have even been numerous studies, but no FDA-style "clinical trials". At the same time, it is considered a simple food tea for its flavour and minty aroma. So is it quackery? Should peppermint tea be regulated?

[Justforfun000]

Frankly your posting on this issue seems pretty inconsistent - you quickly become defensive, emotional and rely on personal authority or anecdotes, while at the same time CLAIMING you know it's not proof etc. You've even now switched to using vague language to avoid criticism, which is only a step in the rigth direction if you actually understand what was wrong with your attitude.

Untrue. I have not changed my position one bit, I have only continued to clarify it by dealing with every imaginable strawman and nitpick imaginable that you and others kept throwing at me. I became defensive and emotional when being ganged up on, misrepresented and completely unresponded to when arguing points you even NOW concede had relevance, but weer unworthy to concede to me during my own comments. Seems more like a position of simply trying to prove someone completely wrong instead of meeting in the middle and showing them where in your mind they may be wrong, where they may be right, and how you think they might be confused or mistaken.

You know, there is a lot to be said for empathy in debate. If you don't give a damn about the other person's opinion, how your words affect them and/or upset them and ultimately the only important thing is to prove your side is correct, then the motivations for this seem pretty mean spirited and unhelpful to me.

And what "vague" language? It's the opposite. I had to get more and more bloody specific as if I was explaining to a 3 year old what should have been obvious instead of the need to clarify every possible extreme distortion someone could willfully pick out of my sentences.

[Justforfun000]

Jesus christ. This is what I mean by 'inconsistent'. Have you even read this study?

No I didn't Stark, and if you read what I already posted, you would know that. I SAID that. See? You really aren't being fair with me whether you want to admit it or not.

[Stark]

You know, there is a lot to be said for empathy in debate. If you don't give a damn about the other person's opinion, how your words affect them and/or upset them and ultimately the only important thing is to prove your side is correct, then the motivations for this seem pretty mean spirited and unhelpful to me.

Fuck off and die. I'm not interested in you or your feelings - only your attitude and the things you say or claim.

And don't bullshit me - you've gone from 'obviously good' and 'generally known to be useful' to 'this study is suggestive of benefit'.

EDIT - actually, as a follow on from the points about the FDA/testing etc, wasn't there a thread a week or so ago about a big government funded testing program that tested a bunch of stuff (I imagine stuff that a drug company wouldn't see any benefit in due to patent issues etc) and found they all did nothing? Is this an example of the necessary independent testing outside the pharmaceutical process?

[Erik von Nein]

Yes, but that evades the point. A lot of people would prefer to get these substances from plants in their diet as teas or spices (or even food ingredients) even if they are less effective per-dose than a purified pharmaceutical drug would be. A lot of people don't actually like the idea of using high-strength drugs at all, and not entirely without cause: high-strength drugs tend to have high-strength side effects.

Hmm, true. That brings us back to how the effects get tested. If no one's willing to shell out the money to test their effects, how do we go about proving whether or not their effective?

EDIT: I'm not really arguing in favor of the current FDA model, either. I'm arguing more for good scientific studies on the issue. I know the topic originally started on that subject, though. Sorry for any confusion.

EDIT II: Stark, I posted a link to the article your referencing on the last page.

[Stark]

No I didn't Stark, and if you read what I already posted, you would know that. I SAID that. See? You really aren't being fair with me whether you want to admit it or not.

Oh jesus fucking christ. Stop being a crybaby - you just posted a marketing blurb as evidence and admit you haven't read the studies they peripherally refer to WHICH YOU USE AS EVIDENCE... so how the fuck does this help your argument? It just makes you look like an idiot who accepts anything positive about traditional medicine - EXACTLY the attitude I mentioned in my first post.

[Justforfun000]

Fuck off and die. I'm not interested in you or your feelings - only your attitude and the things you say or claim.

And don't bullshit me - you've gone from 'obviously good' and 'generally known to be useful' to 'this study is suggestive of benefit'.

Fine. That proves my point and also gives me little concern to your opinions. Respect is a two way street.

I said "obviously good" in a VERY narrow, specific reference to an individual person and their own experience which was completely logical in the vein it was said. You're just trying to pretend I extended this position over the entire spectrum of herbs adn their efficacy which is total bullshit and anyone reading this thread can go back and see quite clearly that I never intimated such a thing.

[Darth Wong]

Hmm, true. That brings us back to how the effects get tested. If no one's willing to shell out the money to test their effects, how do we go about proving whether or not their effective?

Only a socialized project could do this. The corporate model is simply incapable of dealing with this concept.

[Justforfun000]

Oh jesus fucking christ. Stop being a crybaby - you just posted a marketing blurb as evidence and admit you haven't read the studies they peripherally refer to WHICH YOU USE AS EVIDENCE... so how the fuck does this help your argument? It just makes you look like an idiot who accepts anything positive about traditional medicine - EXACTLY the attitude I mentioned in my first post.

And the fact that I said THIS when I posted it, is completely irrelevant?

Just for the hell of it, since it's one of the main formulas I've been referencing in my debate, here is a combination of herbs and substances that have a great deal of collective research that is very suggestive of benefit. It's the same line my mother has been taking for years.

Want to explain to me how posting it "just for the hell of it since I have been referencing it in my debate" translates to "I posted it as evidence"? Oh wait. It doesn't!

[Erik von Nein]

JFF, again we run into the point that you can't say it was "obviously good", since you have no way of demonstrating what, exactly, happened with your relative. In addition to that, you brought it up as an example of the efficacy of herbal medicine in general. If you meant otherwise then it didn't come off as being clear, obviously.

[Stark]

Only a socialized project could do this. The corporate model is simply incapable of dealing with this concept.

Mike, do you remember the thread I mention in my edit above? I remember it being a US government project, which is perhaps an example of oversight and testing outside the current 'industry' patent-driven model. If so, it's interesting that you use the term 'socialised' for what is basically a pure research, nonprofit US government program.

[Stark]

And the fact that I said THIS when I posted it, is completely irrelevant?

Just for the hell of it, since it's one of the main formulas I've been referencing in my debate, here is a combination of herbs and substances that have a great deal of collective research that is very suggestive of benefit. It's the same line my mother has been taking for years.

Want to explain to me how posting it "just for the hell of it since I have been referencing it in my debate" translates to "I posted it as evidence"? Oh wait. It doesn't!

Do you HONESTLY think admitting you're posting feelgood nonsense for no reason makes you look LESS noncritical? You even linked it to your useless personal anecdote - thus implying it supports your arguments - while admitting you have no idea!

[Erik von Nein]

Only a socialized project could do this. The corporate model is simply incapable of dealing with this concept.

Mike, do you remember the thread I mention in my edit above? I remember it being a US government project, which is perhaps an example of oversight and testing outside the current 'industry' patent-driven model. If so, it's interesting that you use the term 'socialised' for what is basically a pure research, nonprofit US government program.

Yeah, Stark, I mentioned it in the edit to my one post above. I put the link for the article in my post on the page before this one.

Here it is, again. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31190909/

[Justforfun000]

JFF, again we run into the point that you can't say it was "obviously good", since you have no way of demonstrating what, exactly, happened with your relative. In addition to that, you brought it up as an example of the efficacy of herbal medicine in general. If you meant otherwise then it didn't come off as being clear, obviously.

Ok, to be fair, that was probably too strong a statement. Obviously is almost the same as proof, so I'm sorry, and yes Stark in regards to that I have to apologize to you. It is too strong a statement now that I think over it more carefully.

I was thinking more in the sense of in all likelihood because the fact remains that if you ARE taking a drug that raises liver enzymes, or are a heavy drinker, these don't just spontaneously drop of their own accord as a rule. If someone shows a clear causation to the onset of a substance and their own bloodwork, and then see the SAME effect reversed when stopped, and again evidenced when they start it up again, this is pretty suggestive that the substance is the culprit. It's not much different then someone smoking a joint 3 different times and getting dizzy and lightheaded. It's common sense that after enough experimentation with direct cause and effect that they can conclude quite sensiblt that the pot is responsible and not a "placebo effect" or just sheer coincidence that they would have ended up that way that night even if they DIDN'T smoke it.

That's perfectly logical and is not any different in reality then the argument I gave for my mother but I highly doubt you're going to rip this second example to shreds, and why? Only because it's demonstrably simpler to see the direct causation by time and circumstance. A substance that affects liver enzymes is a lot more subtle and more difficult to evaluate.

But my point still stands as valid. It's VERY likely that the liver formula she takes is directly responsible for the beneficial effects she sees in relation to her AST, ALT levels and what have you. Is it good enough for proof over the entire spectrum of herbal medicine, or even for this particular formula? Of course not! But I never said it was even though I keep being strawmanned into these ridiculous extremes.

[Darth Wong]

Only a socialized project could do this. The corporate model is simply incapable of dealing with this concept.

Mike, do you remember the thread I mention in my edit above? I remember it being a US government project, which is perhaps an example of oversight and testing outside the current 'industry' patent-driven model. If so, it's interesting that you use the term 'socialised' for what is basically a pure research, nonprofit US government program.

I don't know why that would be "interesting"; what else would you call a non-profit government-run program but "socialized"?

In any case, the headline for that study was somewhat misleading. The study did indeed debunk many alternative therapies, but they did mention that some of them did appear to have some effect, and they didn't test that many. If anything, that shows why such research is worthwhile; if you test two dozen ideas and only one of them has any merit, both the positive and negative results are useful.

[Justforfun000]

Do you HONESTLY think admitting you're posting feelgood nonsense for no reason makes you look LESS noncritical? You even linked it to your useless personal anecdote - thus implying it supports your arguments - while admitting you have no idea!

Will you please calm down? I simply posted it as a reference. Other then that, all I said was it contains collective information of sugestive benefit. Where do you see an untruth or a logical fallacy in there? I just can't understand why you're so hostile to my posts no matter where I go with them.

[Stark]

I don't know why that would be "interesting"; what else would you call a non-profit government-run program but "socialized"?

Given the current political climate in the US, I'm sure many wouldn't be happy that the government indulged in such a project. Somehow the free market will provide accurate research in an area where return on investment is difficult or impossible!

In any case, the headline for that study was somewhat misleading. The study did indeed debunk many alternative therapies, but they did mention that some of them did appear to have some effect, and they didn't test that many. If anything, that shows why such research is worthwhile; if you test two dozen ideas and only one of them has any merit, both the positive and negative results are useful.

That's why I think it's more a research project than a 'bioprospecting' profit-driven thing. However, from what I saw in the thread made earlier, I got the impression it was many separate projects with quite a range of therapies examined.