Cinnamon Does Not Lower Blood Sugar Levels

[Richard157]

I have been hearing for a couple of years that cinnamon can help lower blood sugar levels. The following article does not agree with that assertion.

Diabetes News - American Diabetes Association (http://www.diabetes.org/diabetesnewsarticle.jsp?storyId=16729458&filename=20080108/reuters20080108health00000015reutershealthewEDIT.x ml)

[JediSkipdogg]

Since the ADA agrees to it it's only about 25% true....LOL

The ADA didn't support Low Carb diets for a long time and now they finally do. There's been studies that have gone both ways on the cinnamon reasoning. I think it's mainly a long term thing and therefore it has to be taken everyday and the overall average will be lower.

[xMenace]

The ADA didn't support Low Carb diets for a long time and now they finally do.

I haven't read their statement, but my dietician tells me they neither support nor condone it. They ride the fence.

[JediSkipdogg]

I haven't read their statement, but my dietician tells me they neither support nor condone it. They ride the fence.

CarbWire - ADA Supports Low-Carb Diet For Weight Loss, Not Health (http://www.carbwire.com/2007/12/28/ada_supports_lowcarb_diet_for_weight_loss_not_heal th)

[lgvincent]

I tried it for a long time and never noticed any change.

[volleyball]

The Article seem to suggest that 1 report showed no difference. It did not say it was the ADA position. It also was focused on heart and not diabetes.
I like cinnamon. I put lots on my food. I am going to keep on using it. I don't think it is a magic pill, but a help along with eating right.

[wiseguy]

Cinnamon does help some people with type 2 diabetes control their BG levels. I place no value on anything the ADA has to say about anything.

[princesslinda]

I have used cinnamon for sometime now, in my tea and on anything I think it would taste good on. I took cinnamon capsules for awhile, but they bothered my stomach somewhat, so now I just add it to things.

I have found that cinnamon DOES in fact help my blood sugars. I can eat the same thing (ie: kashi cereal) w/o cinnamon and find my levels a little higher than if I have the cinnamon sprinkled on it.

As with most things diabetes-wise, your results may vary.

[jhausmann]

I wonder if the type makes a difference.

from Wikipedia: Cinnamon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinnamon)

The name cinnamon is correctly used to refer to Ceylon Cinnamon, also known as "true cinnamon" (from the botanical name C. zeylanicum). However, the related species Cassia (Cinnamomum aromaticum), Saigon Cinnamon (Cinnamomum loureiroi) and Cinnamomum burmannii are sometimes sold labeled as cinnamon, sometimes distinguished from true cinnamon as "Chinese Cinnamon", "Vietnamese cinnamon" or "Indonesian cinnamon."[citation needed] Ceylon cinnamon, using only the thin inner bark, has a finer, less dense, and more crumbly texture, and is considered to be less strong than cassia. Cassia has a much stronger (somewhat harsher) flavor than Cinnamon and is generally a medium to light reddish brown, is hard and woody in texture, and is thicker (2–3 mm thick), as all of the layers of bark are used. All of the powdered cinnamon sold in supermarkets in the United States is actually Cassia. European health agencies have recently warned against consuming high amounts of cassia, due to a toxic component called coumarin.[1] This is contained in much lower dosages in Cinnamomum burmannii due to its low essential oil content. Coumarin is known to cause liver and kidney damage in high concentrations. True Ceylon cinnamon has negligible amounts of Coumarin.

[shabbie]

I tried it for a long time and never noticed any change.

Ditto.................

[volleyball]

The experiments were conducted using the american or fake cinnamon. I did not see any tests using the more Viet. or other real stuff. I have both kinds, I do use the Viet. kind in baking

[REDLAN]

I read the news report, and I also read the abstract from Diabetes Care, and I also looked at a discussion in a blog with an author who can afford the $15 dollar subscription to read the whole article (I personally find this OUTRAGEOUS) both additional articles are linked below.

Effect of Cinnamon on Glucose Control and Lipid Parameters -- Baker et al. 31 (1): 41 -- Diabetes Care (http://care.diabetesjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/31/1/41)

Junkfood Science: Cinnamon and sugar ? blood sugar, that is (http://junkfoodscience.blogspot.com/2008/01/cinnamon-and-sugar-blood-sugar-that-is.html)

The conclusion drawn by the authors was

Cinnamon does not appear to improve A1C, FBG, or lipid parameters in patients with type 1 or type 2 diabetes.

Which is kinda blunt and to the point really. There is no evidence that cinnamon works.

Things to note.

the 5 studies were randomised double-blinded trials - the highest quality and least susceptible to biases.

the quantities of cinnamon ingested were between 1g and 6g daily (i.e. rather a lot). Would suggest that sprinkling cinnamon on your food to taste is even less likely to do anything. However it does taste nice, and I for one will be continuing to add it to my food.

re-reading the news article again, I thought overall that it was well written in the sense that it fairly accurately reflected the results that the researchers found (which I personally find astonishing)

the headline was

Cinnamon Does Not Control Blood Sugar Or Fat Levels

which is quite close to the results - although they could not claim that cinnamon didn't work only that it did not appear to work.

they did say something stupid in the article though

"The preponderance of evidence currently available does not suggest that cinnamon has the ability to decrease a person's risk of heart disease by helping them control their diabetes or lower their cholesterol,"

Duh? I guess this is why volleyball presumed that the study was about heart disease. The one thing the study did not investigate was heart disease - the claim can not be substantiated or inferred from the results.

[Old man]

Been taking cinnamon a long time and can't tell if it helps or not. I've done so many things at the same time that I have to guess at what caused which results. When I first heard of cinnamon benefits coming from the water soluble part I tried to use a coffee filter to make a tea. The boiling water and cinnamon simply made a gelatinous glob which would not pass through the filter even after hours. I suspect cinnamon behaves as any soluble fiber with similar benefits. Can't back it up but that's what I suspect.

[Alice]

I think the ADA's caution on the low-carbing is the concern of people confusing it with "no-carbing"...

I think "low carbing" is very subjective. Someone who's been eating "super-size-me" truck stop portions will think they are low-carbing when only having 45 carbs in a meal. To an extreme low-carber, 45 seems high. (30-45 seems healthy to me...) So there ya go.

I think the ADA realizes that they can't prescribe a carb plan to fit everyone and correctly stayed out of that "trend" the author-docs started with the books.

Each person should be working that out with their own doctor/nutritionist...not the ADA getting involved.

[volleyball]

I read Redlan's linked articles and I do not see how they are conclusive.
It mentioned a 90 day study which is a blip in out lives. It mentioned other things which I cannot see how they made those conclusions.
I believe that cinnamon will only help some of us. I believe it is no magic pill. Maybe it only is noticeable if you do not take pills.
Next to insulin, I think we are in the most remarkable time of diabetes discoveries. Because the progression is over a long period of time, it may be 50 years before any truths can be assumed.
I am risking my life on what I believe to be the best course for me. I will suggest my way and some will travel down the road I follow. Others will not. Everyone has to choose there own road. Maybe someday we will meet as our paths cross or join.

[REDLAN]

I read Redlan's linked articles and I do not see how they are conclusive.

I think this is one of the issues around how scientific knowledge is disseminated into the media and then received by the public at large.

If you read the headline (and this one is no different), then you could be forgiven for thinking that the results are definitive and beyond question. The headline in this case is Cinnamon Does Not Control Blood Sugar Or Fat Levels unfortunately they forgot the very important phrase appear to, which was in the original conclusion.

Nothing is ever conclusive. And a scientific fact is not the same as a lay persons fact. I found and rather liked this...

Fact does not always mean the same thing as truth. Fact is a generally agreed-upon and seemingly obvious observation. It is a fact that things stick to the earth, without regard to why that happens. It was once a fact that the planets changed direction from time to time, and that the sun, planets and stars circled the earth once daily. This seemed obvious, and was generally agreed to be the case.

In time, the fact was changed, and it was then said that the earth circles the sun, and the planets only appear to change direction as they are passed by the earth in their orbits, or vise versa.

back to the study....

The meta study - i.e. a summary of 5 controlled studies did not find sufficient evidence that cinnamon controlled blood sugar.

Typically they will use the term statistical significance - i.e. the differences did not reach statistical significance. what they mean is that any differences were probably just down to chance. When they say the result was statistically significant they mean that there was a low probability that they got the result by chance (1 in 20 that the result occurred by chance is the typically accepted minimum).

and yes you've guessed it saying that a result is statistically significant does not mean that it did not occur purely by the chance.

which is why the authors have to add the all important appears to in their conclusions.

the issue of the 90 days - there are at least 2 reasons for this.

Firstly it's cost. Double-blinded placebo trials are expensive, and the longer they go on, the more expensive they are. For something as controversial as a food having a pharmacological effect then you aren't going to get a lot of money for something that people know is unlikely to have any effect, but you might get some cash to conduct a stage I clinical trial, to see if there is anything there. The simple plain fact (and by this I mean an objective verifiable observation) is that the average plate of food, with flavourings from various barks and other plant parts, has no discernible effect on the body other than to stop you feeling hungry, which I think is rather marvelous all in itself. Double-blinded placebo controlled trials have drawn a blank when it comes to investigating the health properties of various foodstuffs, time and time and time again.

secondly - I do not know of a mechanism (except cumulative toxins) whereby a substance's pharmacological effect occurs outside of a 90 day window. Usually if you give someone something pharmacologically active it normally starts work straight away - the studies have chosen what is known as a surrogate end-points. A surrogate end-point is when you choose to measure something else other than the disease itself - HBa1C is a surrogate end-point - an A1c result does not in itself indicate that a person has complications from diabetes, but it does correlate with the risk that they might get them. the good thing about surrogate end-points is that they usually respond much faster to an intervention (i.e. cinnamon capsules) than the disease process itself.



on another point the blog entry - the no dose relationship is a big blow. Without dose relationship, there is no effect. It is the central tenet of pharmacology - give someone a low dose of something, then they will respond a little, give them a high dose, they should respond a lot.

In english then...

A few small studies indicate that cinnamon doesn't work. No one is going to be really interested in doing any longer/larger studies because a) nobody can remember a time when a foodstuff had a pharmacological effect on the body, and b) if it was going to do anything it should have shown up within 3 months, something, anything.

It's about as definitive as it gets, and by this I mean an objective verifiable observation

doesn't mean cinnamon doesn't lower blood sugar though.

[REDLAN]

forum nicked my link again :mad:

here it is for an explanation of surrogate end-points.

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/glossary/surrog.html

[volleyball]

That was a very good explanation. But I've read documents from the horse's mouth that also defy logic. When a researcher tries to quantify the results, they also tend to make assumptions that can be construed as facts. The methodology of the studies seem to defy reason sometimes.
While controlling blood sugar is a direct measurement, the goal is to avoid any complications, those are the things that will kill you. I exclude insulin and corresponding hypo's for this argument. a bad day of high blood sugar is no big deal, having many cause a cumulative effect on us. Logic seems to conclude that a period greater than 90 days would be in order to do a study. Many other studies go on for decades.
I expect never to see a proper study of something that cannot be monopolized.

[DCaplinger]

I don't believe that this was a valid experiment, nor do I believe for a moment that it was a double blind experiment.

No reputible drug company or group is going to spend the money to do a real test of a natural cure. The costs are very high, and there is no return for the investment. You can't patent a natural cure. It's all about the money.

I doubt there will ever be a "study" done by such a group that would support a natural cure. Afterall, why should they do something that would support a cure that would make their drugs worthless? THEY WOULDN'T! The drug companies don't care about your health. They need you to be ill, else you won't need to buy their drugs!

Call me jaded, but I call it the way I see it.

Regards,

[wiseguy]

I don't believe that this was a valid experiment, nor do I believe for a moment that it was a double blind experiment.

No reputible drug company or group is going to spend the money to do a real test of a natural cure. The costs are very high, and there is no return for the investment. You can't patent a natural cure. It's all about the money.

I doubt there will ever be a "study" done by such a group that would support a natural cure. Afterall, why should they do something that would support a cure that would make their drugs worthless? THEY WOULDN'T! The drug companies don't care about your health. They need you to be ill, else you won't need to buy their drugs!

Call me jaded, but I call it the way I see it.

Regards,
I couldn't agree more.

[REDLAN]

No reputible drug company or group is going to spend the money to do a real test of a natural cure. The costs are very high, and there is no return for the investment. You can't patent a natural cure. It's all about the money.

This isn't strictly correct.

Statins come from red yeast rice. The very first statin, was chemically identical to the one produced by red yeast rice, and they certainly managed to patent that.

assuming for one minute that cinnamon contains a pharmacological compound that lowers blood sugar. It can be extracted, purified, and tested, and if it is proven to be effective, then it can most certainly be patented and is most definitely worth money.

I don't believe that this was a valid experiment, nor do I believe for a moment that it was a double blind experiment.

no that's right they looked at the results from 5 double blinded placebo trials, and concluded that there wasn't an effect. Unless of course all those researchers were lying...

and the stated reason for the study?

Coleman told Reuters Health that the inspiration for conducting this specific analysis came from one of his research fellows, Dr. William Baker. "He works in a chain pharmacy as a pharmacist, now and then, and he was asked by a patient whether cinnamon was useful in treating diabetes."

"As pharmacists, we want to be able to provide patients ... with the best information about these over-the-counter treatments, which are often readily available but under researched," Coleman said

The proliferation of "natural cures" like cinnamon whose claims rely on small poorly performed trials. Are inadequately regulated as they count only as a food supplement and not a drug, and so don't have follow the strict guidelines on safety that a pharmocological drug has to. And then make claims that they have a pharmacological action.

this I think is a real problem, but is dismissed because the product is labelled as natural.

don't worry it's alright, it's natural...

so is botulism

[DCaplinger]

The proliferation of "natural cures" like cinnamon whose claims rely on small poorly performed trials. Are inadequately regulated as they count only as a food supplement and not a drug, and so don't have follow the strict guidelines on safety that a pharmocological drug has to. And then make claims that they have a pharmacological action.

What's your point? Have you ever heard of anyone getting cancer from Stevia? No, however, it's not been approved by the FDA. Again, why... because it CANNOT BE PATENTED. Also, these "poorly performed trials" you speak of are only poorly performed, because no reputable school or pharmaceutical would dare test them. Any medical school that would try to test the validity of a natural cure, would immediately lose any support from the pharmaceutical industry they get. All medical schools are anymore, is a mill for pharmaceuticals. If centuries of use isn't enough to "prove" anything for you, then stand in line and take whatever drug they can talk you into taking.

Statins come from red yeast rice. The very first statin, was chemically identical to the one produced by red yeast rice, and they certainly managed to patent that.

That statement is so scary, it's almost terrifying. Statins either come from red yeast rice, or they are chemically identical. They can't be both. In the case of statins, there is nothing natural about them. They are chemical recreations, which are neither as beneficial as the original source, or nearly as safe.

If I have a million dollars, and a drug, I can find a way to get FDA approved, regardless of the dangers. If I have a natural product, it will not only never be approved or taken seriously, but I would be hounded by the Government until I stop making the product altogether.

Who do you think is on the board at the FDA? Do some research, you might be surprised to find out that most of the board is made up of former employees and executives from the very pharmaceutical companies they oversee. It's all a big sham.

I put no faith into the advice of the FDA. I put even less faith into the drug companies. As is frequently said here, YMMV. According to the rules established by the FDA, the only thing that can cure a disease is a drug. The problem, as I've said before, is that there isn't a single drug, NOT ONE, that cures any disease. I'll repeat that. THERE ISN'T A SINGLE DRUG, NOT ONE, THAT CURES ANY DISEASE! All drugs do is treat symptoms. As they treat symptoms, they create side effects and complications. Drugs are poisons. They are chemicals. I am only taking the Metformin, because I have to get my BGLs under control. Since the Metformin isn't doing the trick, I'll be looking at insulin, which originally was a real natural product.

Now, let's look at that... insulin became cheaper, because they lost the patent protections, so now we have analogs, which are much more expensive. Don't tell me it's not about the money. Analogs are no where near "natural". They are lab generated. Nothing that comes from a lab is as beneficial as something that comes from nature.

Oh, and if you didn't know, botulism is now one of the best selling products ever created. We call it Botox. ;)

I could go on all night about this subject. However, I'll yield the floor.

Regards,

[wiseguy]

Statins come from red yeast rice. The very first statin, was chemically identical to the one produced by red yeast rice, and they certainly managed to patent that.
Merck’s patent on this was the first ever filed on a naturally occurring substance and should never been allowed to happen. There are people who take red yeast rice in capsule form instead of the prescription statins. Of course red yeast rice is not a well known and accepted substance like the cinnamon we find in out kitchen cabinet. So what if, while doing research, a pharmaceutical company finds that cinnamon does indeed help lower blood sugar and it does this without needing to be processed into something that can be patented and sold for some ridiculous price? Do you think that they would release this finding to the public? Not a chance!
no that's right they looked at the results from 5 double blinded placebo trials, and concluded that there wasn't an effect. Unless of course all those researchers were lying...
DR. Richard Anderson at the US Department of Agriculture's Human Nutrition Research Center has done studies that prove that cinnamon does help lower blood sugar levels in type 2 diabetics. Unless he's lying...

Anderson and coworkers published their results from a double-blind controlled trial using cinnamon and placebo with 60 adult type 2 diabetic patients. Ten patients received one gram cinnamon daily for 40 days; 10 received three grams daily; and 10 received six grams daily after meals. Thirty placebo patients received capsules of one, three, or six grams of placebo after meals for 40 days.

Blood measurements were taken at 0, 20, 40 and 60 days (20 days after last capsules). There was no significant change in blood glucose, triglycerides, total cholesterol, or LDL cholesterol among the placebo patients over the 60 days. The cinnamon patients had blood- glucose decreases of 18 to 29 percent and triglyceride decreases of 23 to 30 percent. Total cholesterol went down 13 to 26 percent, while LDL cholesterol dropped 10 to 24 percent. There was overall no significant change in HDL cholesterol levels. Ironically, some parameters were lower at day 60 than day 40, showing a deep-seated improvement in metabolic status. None of the measurements at day 60 went back up to the high levels at day 0. No side effects were observed. Thus, cinnamon has now shown excellent activity to normalize blood insulin/glucose/ lipid metabolism in people where it was impaired.
The proliferation of "natural cures" like cinnamon whose claims rely on small poorly performed trials. Are inadequately regulated as they count only as a food supplement and not a drug, and so don't have follow the strict guidelines on safety that a pharmocological drug has to.
And how many people have died, and will die, from taking these "safe" pharmacological drugs? I'm betting it's a lot more than have died from botulism and all the "natural cures" combined.

[volleyball]

I hope this doesn't get cut off because of the controversy.
The reality is that people doing studies get paid, they are influenced in determining what they look at.
and someone reading several studies and being able to determine their agendas and resolving the issues by themselves who is influenced means they are not guaranteed truths.
But we also need to recognize that pharmaceuticals while in business to make money have people running them that are human and not intent on harming us. and they have government watching them.
So most likely it is somewhere in the middle.

[BlueSky]

.... THERE ISN'T A SINGLE DRUG, NOT ONE, THAT CURES ANY DISEASE! All drugs do is treat symptoms. As they treat symptoms, they create side effects and complications. Drugs are poisons. They are chemicals. ....
This is of course right. But relatively few people see it this way. I never cease to be amazed by the unquestioning alacrity with which people use these drugs to intervene with the way their bodies work. Doctors really should know better. Messing with the complex, interdependant and delicately balanced biochemical systems we depend on to function should be absolutely the last resort. But as soon as a symptom appears, doctors prescribe drugs. I have had to explain to doctors that instead of taking drugs, I want to give my body a chance to fix itself. They just don't seem to get it.

I do feel sorry for them though.The pressure to prescribe comes from both sides - patients who demand symptomatic relief and drug companies trying to increase sales. When it comes to maintaining a balanced position that has some integrity, these poor doctors haven't got a chance. Having said all that, I think we should be equally cautious with using natural substances to intervene with the way our bodies work.

[DCaplinger]

I'm not trying to stir up controversy. I am just fed up at the misinformation that is usually put out by the pharmaceutical companies, or their subsidiaries, that try to dispel perfectly safe and all natural substances that may compete with their high price drugs.

Do not believe the hype. Check out sites that are truly about all natural products. My favorite reference is earthclinic.com. They do not allow advertising of any source, and they also list yays and nays from people who have tried the specific remedies.

Here's a good example. Hydrogen Peroxide. If you ask most people in the medical field, they would tell you that it is a very dangerous substance. The pharmaceutical companies would mimic that statement. However, it has been shown through alternative medicine that simple old hydrogen peroxide, when taken internally via IV, can CURE some types of cancer. That's not a mistake. An 87 cent product that can cure cancer. Now, if you were in the business of selling cancer treatment drugs, would you want that news to be public? If it became public, wouldn't you rush to put out as much misinformation about it as possible, in order to keep your sales up? This isn't a joke, we are talking about lives. If you have to have a doctor, get a naturopath. They are also Medical Doctors, but they don't use conventional medications on their patients, because they too recognize that the cures for most illnesses already exist in nature.

Regards,

[volleyball]

What's interesting is that this group is made up of both ends of the spectrum and most in the middle. Most take some medicine and yet look to things like cinnamon to help.
I think the cinnamon helps and the numbers prove it. If it turns out to be the placebo effect, I have no problem with that. The results are what matter. And I like cinnamon. If it were Brussels sprouts, that may be a different story.
I know that cherry juice works for me for gout and the medicine does not, makes me nauseous. Acid reflux disappeared with raw vegetables in the evening.
But it's not the same for everyone. The pills are a known quantity, the natural ones are not. It would be tough for a doctor to prescribe a fixed amount of celery to eat. We pay a premium for packaged foods in supermarkets, why not pills in drug stores?
I pose this all is just to get people thinking. Eastern, Western and folk medicine all have a place in our modern world.

[pooh3465]

I have had type one diabetes for 31 years and I had once been watching a diabetes channel on tv. The gentle man on there was a doctor and told that he gave his wife cinnamon pills to help with her blood sugars. I went to wal mart...cause mine are always all over the place and bought a bottle of the cinnamon capsules I took one in the morning and it wasn't 30 min later my sugars dropped very fast and threw me into a low blood sugar reaction. I tried them a couple more times and the same thing happened so I stopped trying them but for me my sugars react the same way to the pills called Chromium picolinate I think that was supposed to help people loose weight......it just helps me loose ground lol
So I really think it is who you are and how your body reacts to things....articles are great but if you don't try things out for yourself you may miss out on something that will help. GOD bless everyone have a great day.

[Evermont]

I've been following this thread with great interest and truly appreciate the discussion here from all of you.

I would think you all might be interested in the "integrative medicine" promoted by Dr. Andrew Weil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Weil), but I also think you might appreciate this critique of him (http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/weil.html). It all seems to dovetail nicely with the discussion in this thread.

[REDLAN]

Interesting articles, and I think the critique highlights some of the differences between the 2 practices.

I found this response from DCaplinger very interesting and seems to me to be the central argument that I've heard used time and time again by those who argue for the natural versus artificial.

That statement is so scary, it's almost terrifying. Statins either come from red yeast rice, or they are chemically identical. They can't be both. In the case of statins, there is nothing natural about them. They are chemical recreations, which are neither as beneficial as the original source, or nearly as safe.

Let me start by stating I do not understand the logic behind this statement, particularly this statement...

Statins either come from red yeast rice, or they are chemically identical. They can't be both.

this argument seems to be central to the natural versus artificial argument, that a chemical that is naturally derived just CAN'T possibly be the same as one that is artificially created.

this thinking is scientific heresy of the highest order. Current scientific thinking is that elementary particles have discrete and unalterable properties. The point is this...

if I gave you a molecule of the statin extracted from red yeast rice, there is no test that you could perform that could differentiate it from a molecule of the same statin made artificially. To all intents and purposes they are the same.

yet this belief seems to persist that somehow a natural produced substance is somehow different to an artificially produced one.

This thinking is clearly not scientific, however it is clearly compatible with the thinking applied to alternative health therapies, for instance...

They are chemical recreations, which are neither as beneficial as the original source, or nearly as safe.

And there was me thinking that red yeast rice was poisonous. Originally statins were going to be used as a pesticide. And if the artificial ones are chemically the same, then they are either as beneficial or as harmful as the natural ones, unless you believe that how they are made matters, in which case while this argument may not be scientific, it is consistent with the beliefs of other health practices.

PS - before someone points it out scientific thinking is in fact a belief system. Scientists may claim that it relies on logic, but it is still a belief system.

[DCaplinger]

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,

[wiseguy]

Just face it Darian, some people will never accept that any substance that has not been manufactured by a pharmaceutical company and approved by the FDA can possibly be safe and effective. They actually believe that these companies and organizations have the public's best interest at heart.

[REDLAN]

no flaming - not from me - I'm only going to agree or disagree with the points that have been made. I believe this is called debate. ;) Although I think we have both adequately made our points on this subject.

On the FDA - I hope that because I did not criticise them, no one inferred that I was defending their actions. I feel that issues around impartiality ARE important, and yes I believe that we are justified in questioning the impartiality of people who have strong financial ties with those they are supposed to be regulating. Independent SHOULD mean exactly that.

For instance, I believe that stevia should be licenced for use as a sweetener. It would appear from the current evidence that it is as safe as other licenced sweeteners such as saccharin, and aspartame. There are valid reasons to believe that it's rejection by the FDA were based more on political and financial reasons than it's safety. It was rejected after an anonymous complaint - hmm I wonder which large multi-national company that was possibly from?

On science being a belief system I rather liked this...

Scientific realism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_realism)

realism is the current philosophy behind how science works, and whether science represents an underlying reality or not.

the argument for is simply that science is very good at explaining current phenomenon. The argument against is that many previous theories that were once thought to be true have been rejected in favour of better theories and are now believed to be false. So the question becomes - what makes us think that our current knowledge will not be demonstrated to be false by later theories?

my concern about natural remedies, is not the remedies themselves, but the marketing that goes with them. (I have concerns about the ways that pharmaceutical companies market their products as well). Just a quick search using the term diabetes yields hundreds of companies marketing natural cures. There have been many posts on this forum asking about this or that supplement. Often advertised as natural, safe and effective - and after looking into the claims, usually it is discovered that the evidence is poor at best - often we are talking mice studies.

And this is the rub...

do people not want to know whether the product they are taking is really safe and effective?

[DCaplinger]

Before I begin, I just want it known that this is not aimed at REDLAN. I have absolutely no qualms with REDLAN, and I do appreciate and rather enjoy the challenge of a debate. :) Thanks, REDLAN. If I ever meet you in person, the drinks (coffee, tea, diet soda, and hey, maybe even a lite beer) are on me!

*BEGIN RANT*

It's stuff like that, which makes me want to puke. The altruists of the world have to spin everything into a belief, don't they? Science doesn't give a darn if you are a Christian, or a Jew, or an Atheist. Science, is impartial. Science is not a art. Science is not a discipline. Science is about the search for facts. Science is about the exploration of the unknown. Science is about finding new ways of doing things, hopefully for the better.

Science doesn't bite. Science doesn't care if you are 20 or if you are 200. Science doesn't care if you are white, or black, or any other color. Science has no smell. It has no taste. It isn't tangible.

The problem, as I see it, is that we've gone so far into the realm of political correctness, that we have to give everything a label, so that we "feel good" about ourselves. What a load of garbage.

The Scientist may have a belief system, but the Science he's practicing could care less. Let us not get so wrapped up in todays atmosphere that we lose focus of that fact.

Just 200 years ago, many of the things we know today as easy scientific fact, were still considered "miracles from God", because they couldn't be explained. The fact that Science can now explain those wonders doesn't shake my belief in God at all. It just helps me to understand how He did it.

If you put your belief in Science, you are only setting yourself up for a heartache. Science doesn't care about you. It only cares about facts. Science has no leader, and it answers to no one. Unfortunately, people do, which is why sciencific studies are altered to benefit the greedy, such as the pharaceuticals and the food industry giants.

Okay, now I need to quit, or I will end up writing a full book! As I said, I could do this all day. For the record, I am a Christian. I am politically a Constitutional Conservative (I don't affiliate with the Republicans. I vote my conscience). I am also a fan of Science, even though I know that Science couldn't give a rip about what I am a fan of.

Before I go:

And this is the rub...

do people not want to know whether the product they are taking is really safe and effective?

Of course they do! However, the big money will keep it from ever happening. ****, look at the very drugs the big money kicks out at us. How many people have died from taking Cinnamon? Huh? Now, how many THOUSANDS have died from taking statins? If you want to look at facts, look at all of them, not just the ones that tend to support a drug companies products, because in my opinion, the drug companies, doctors and the FDA should be charged with MURDER. Why? Because the last time I checked, if someone dies by poisoning, because they were given something by you that you know can cause death... is INTENTIONAL MURDER.

Actually, let me step back for a moment. I don't actually blame the pharmaceuticals for the lack of oversight. I honestly believe, that once a drug has received approval by the FDA, that the FDA should be the ones held liable for damages caused by drugs that weren't studied enough. If it passed FDA approval, then it should have truly been safe. If it wasn't safe, and it passed anyway, then we call that fraud, and the boys at the FDA should be held laible and accountable for their fraudulant actions. I don't for a moment believe that good intentions ever apply in those cases.

*END OF RANT*

Regards,

[Jan B]

I have enjoyed reading these later posts -- very educational, thank you.

[volleyball]

Science may not care about anything but it is practiced by individuals that do. And in this is where the controversy goes. Scientists do not get training in enough other disciplines for them to decide all the requirements for a study. They may be excellent and unbiased about conducting the study but determining parameters and results leaves us with the same problem.
So science is not untouchable. Science does not have the truths, just results.
As far as the drugs killing people and holding the companies accountable, in any gross negligence, they have compensatory mechanisms. Does saving thousands while 1 dies worth it? I do have issues with several drugs that are trying to preempt disease, think they do more harm than good in general. But do we criminally charge the designers of the twin towers for not knowing that terrorist would find that a good target, or car manufactures that know people will die in their vehicles?
And with all our diversity, I bet someone somewhere died from cinnamon.

[DCaplinger]

Negligence suggests they should have known the consequences. In the case of bad drugs, they already know the product can cause death. That's not negligence, that's premedidation. They sold it anyway, because they worried more about profits, than the possibility of death.

Sadly, even the FDA is in on that conspiracy, because they wait until the public outcry can no longer be ignored before they force a recall.

Regards,

[wiseguy]

Negligence suggests they should have known the consequences. In the case of bad drugs, they already know the product can cause death. That's not negligence, that's premeditation. They sold it anyway, because they worried more about profits, than the possibility of death.

Sadly, even the FDA is in on that conspiracy, because they wait until the public outcry can no longer be ignored before they force a recall.

Regards,
It's a numbers game. The profit to be made from sales versus the possible losses from law suits. So if only a very few people will die then the drug can be considered profitable and put on the market.

Don't you just love the drug commercials on tv? Many of them state "even death" as a possible side effect.

[Evermont]

...Don't you just love the drug commercials on tv? Many of them state "even death" as a possible side effect.

So much for premeditated murder. I guess that would make it suicide.

[wiseguy]

Originally Posted by wiseguy
...Don't you just love the drug commercials on tv? Many of them state "even death" as a possible side effect.

So much for premeditated murder. I guess that would make it suicide.
Only if there was a commercial about the drug that was available to you. Your doctor or pharmacist is not likely to mention this little possible side effect. And then it isn't really suicide as that is a definite act. It's more like gambling with your life.

[donkeyface]

DCaplinger, you rock.

[DIABETESBYDRUGS]

Vicodin Drops Mine

[w5wjp]

I buy 1000mg capsules from a health food store. I take 2 capsules (2000mg or 2 g ) every morning. It take about 3 weeks to notice a change and only 1 or 2 days for the change to disappear. I have gone from around 500-600 units per to around 450 per day, sometimes less. I think it works, but like any other natural "medicine", it takes a while to work.