[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

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

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/bo...ry/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]

Originally Posted by 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,

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]

Originally Posted by REDLAN

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]

Originally Posted by DCaplinger

.... 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, but I also think you might appreciate this critique of him. 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.