[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

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]

Originally Posted by 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 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]

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.

[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.

Originally Posted by Evermont

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.