Okay, let's see... we have vitamins. Some are naturally occuring substances that we extract from living plants. Others are lab produced chemical recreations. Those derived in a lab are not natural. They do not contain the same phytonutrients as their natural counterparts. They are not as readily absorbed by the body as their natural counterparts. What part of those facts are not scientific? This isn't rocket science, and if you didn't notice, I am in the medical field. I used to work in a doctors office. My physicians agreed with my line of thinking regarding the use of natural products as opposed to those created in a lab.
I also recall that Splenda was originally designed as a pesticide, however we sweeten with it now. Scary isn't it? We are putting these things in our body. It just goes to prove my point, that things created in a lab are chemicals, they are toxic, and are poisonous.
It's obvious that we aren't going to agree on the subject, so rather than get into a flame war, I think it's best that we call this topic quits, because I could do this all day. Science is neither logical or a belief system. The last time I checked, Science was studying to find facts. There are good and bad things that have come from science, which is why the search will never end. My whole point was, that no pharmaceutical or anyone who is supported by them, will ever try to positively prove a natural product to be safe or effective, because they'd invariably prove that there was something affordable that would do the same job as their expensive drugs.
Please feel free to respond. Also, please understand that I do agree that while I consider medicine to be something that should be used as a last alternative, there are times when they are necessary. In the end, however, I think we just need to overall agree to disagree.
Regards,
