Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Pretty much every single drug is based off a plant. Where do you think the drug companies start in their research? They don't just *invent* drugs, they use plants that WERE used as medicines years ago, and base the drugs off that.
Anyone who researches the beginnings of the medical industry (medical and pharcmacy schooling) understands that Western medicine was absolutely shunned until the 1920-1930s. People did not want to use "Western" medicine. Ans it wasn't because people were stupid -- they saw that more often than not, herbs cured and "drugs" were harmful.
Look into who funded the medical schools and determined how doctors got licenses. It's a very telling story and explains perfectly why the system is the way it is today.
This is a great story...can you provide some references? I mean, in general, whenever there is something new, there is hesitation. When cars first came out there was fear that going 25 mph could do you harm! And do you think everyone immediately took to flying? Same with medicine - as newer medicines showed they worked better than the old, people started accepting them. Nothing new with that at all. Everything starts out as only being barely better than the current and you build on that - that's how science works.
"Drugs" were developed because the herbs did not cure.
In fairness to the herbs, it's highly probable that they did cure in times past. No one would have bothered using them if they didn't work at all. Epigenetics and generational tolerance are raising our threshold for effectiveness.
In fairness to the herbs, it's highly probable that they did cure in times past. No one would have bothered using them if they didn't work at all. Epigenetics and generational tolerance are raising our threshold for effectiveness.
What conditions did they seem to cure, though? People may have been treated for pneumonia with herbs and recovered. Does that mean the herbs worked or was it just viral pneumonia that was going to get better no matter what you did?
Certainly there are active ingredients in plants that are useful as medicines. The difficulty is that the raw plants will have marked variation in the content of those compounds, some of which may have a narrow therapeutic index: it's easy to get too little to be effective - or to get too much and have toxicity. That is true of digitalis from the foxglove plant I mentioned earlier.
I would not want to treat my cancer with vinca plants, though a very useful drug chemo drug is derived from the plant. Another cancer chemotherapy drug comes from yew. The problem with it is that enough for one treatment results in killing a lot of trees. In order for it to be available to the number of people who need it, ways to synthesize have been necessary. No one would have been able to treat breast cancer with yew bark 300 hundred years ago.
We seem to be talking past each other. I really don't want to be hostile. I think it's just a misunderstanding between us.
I did indeed use systemic in the sense of a drug targeting a body system. Many of our drugs will flood a particular system/tissue in the hopes of latching on to enough enzymes.
In my hypothetical story about Linzess, I mentioned a patient who didn't have the enzyme. I did not mean to imply that they were the only individual with that problem. If that were true, Linzess would have a 99% success rate. In fact, there is a sizable population of people who get no help from such laxatives -- and even among those who receive a benefit from it, nobody knows the toll it is taking on their enzyme supply.
Therefore, we likely have a great many people with our hypothetical patient's problem, and this is the gap in their digestive system. If we knew how to find that gap, it could be a standard lab test performed on all IBS-C patients, in the same way they all can have their blood checked for potassium. I'm talking about standardized methods for more precise testing.
Drugs tend to have far-reaching side effects because they will either suppress/inhibit or stimulate/motivate an entire pathway in your body. Linzess, for example, stimulates your enzyme in the hope that A will cause B and you will end up with diarrhea. A pathway of dominoes must fall for the theory to work. Each domino is another chance for something to go wrong. Meanwhile, your body has probably spent years working around those dominoes. When you insert a foreign substance to manipulate the dominoes, your body has no blueprint on how to accommodate the foreign assistance. Hence, lots of side effects.
People who are truly healed/cured do not end up with side effects. The body gets exactly what it needs. Your potassium is low, you eat bananas, problem solved. As long as you moderate your diet of bananas, you won't feel side effects from eating them. Drugs, by definition, are foreign substances that manipulate the body in unnatural ways, regardless of how much or how little you take.
We need to get medicine to the point that every problem can be identified as easily as potassium, and then the natural solution can fix the body. I believe that every illness known to man stems from a natural problem and be solved by a natural solution. We need to find them.
What conditions did they seem to cure, though? People may have been treated for pneumonia with herbs and recovered. Does that mean the herbs worked or was it just viral pneumonia that was going to get better no matter what you did?
Your question about pneumonia can apply pharmaceuticals also. People may be treated for pneumonia using Cipro, for example, but maybe they could have recovered alone either way.
Keep in mind that antibiotic resistance is making more antibiotics obsolete. Garlic was one of the original antibiotics before people had a name for it. They just knew that garlic stopped outbreaks. Modern research has corroborated this.
Unfortunately, we have smarter bugs that can survive garlic.
One day far in the future, our great-grandchildren will be debating whether penicillin ever did kill germs or whether it was all placebo.
It is also very possible that our cancers are more sophisticated than they used to be. We really don't have any way of knowing. We can't go back in time to compare.
What conditions did they seem to cure, though? People may have been treated for pneumonia with herbs and recovered. Does that mean the herbs worked or was it just viral pneumonia that was going to get better no matter what you did?
Certainly there are active ingredients in plants that are useful as medicines. The difficulty is that the raw plants will have marked variation in the content of those compounds, some of which may have a narrow therapeutic index: it's easy to get too little to be effective - or to get too much and have toxicity. That is true of digitalis from the foxglove plant I mentioned earlier.
I would not want to treat my cancer with vinca plants, though a very useful drug chemo drug is derived from the plant. Another cancer chemotherapy drug comes from yew. The problem with it is that enough for one treatment results in killing a lot of trees. In order for it to be available to the number of people who need it, ways to synthesize have been necessary. No one would have been able to treat breast cancer with yew bark 300 hundred years ago.
Maybe TOO, ladies didn't go searching for B.C. None of my lady relatives ever had issues and if they did they were there and not disturbed. Could be all the testing today, promotes more cancers.
The world is pretty complicated, I include the human body in that assessment. I believe we are not yet able to and may not ever be able to achieve most meds with few especially the new ones. I believe man thinks he knows more about the world than he does. Look at physics where the deeper we go the more complexity and added forces and particles are found. Be thankful for the meds we have, its a big reason our life expectancy is increasing rapidly despite our large portion of over weigh and growing number of substance abusing citizens.
Your question about pneumonia can apply pharmaceuticals also. People may be treated for pneumonia using Cipro, for example, but maybe they could have recovered alone either way.
Keep in mind that antibiotic resistance is making more antibiotics obsolete. Garlic was one of the original antibiotics before people had a name for it. They just knew that garlic stopped outbreaks. Modern research has corroborated this.
Unfortunately, we have smarter bugs that can survive garlic.
One day far in the future, our great-grandchildren will be debating whether penicillin ever did kill germs or whether it was all placebo.
It is also very possible that our cancers are more sophisticated than they used to be. We really don't have any way of knowing. We can't go back in time to compare.
Maybe I skimmed to fast, but nothing in that article shows garlic to be an antibiotic.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
Be thankful for the meds we have, its a big reason our life expectancy is increasing rapidly despite our large portion of over weigh and growing number of substance abusing citizens.
Homeopathic believers would argue that these two things are related. Are we extending human life in unnatural, unsustainable ways? Is it better to die young and pass on strong DNA, or is it better to weaken the human race through artificial health and prosperity?
CS Lewis made several predictions about this 70 years ago. He foresaw the human race becoming safer yet less functional.
What conditions did they seem to cure, though? People may have been treated for pneumonia with herbs and recovered. Does that mean the herbs worked or was it just viral pneumonia that was going to get better no matter what you did?
Certainly there are active ingredients in plants that are useful as medicines. The difficulty is that the raw plants will have marked variation in the content of those compounds, some of which may have a narrow therapeutic index: it's easy to get too little to be effective - or to get too much and have toxicity. That is true of digitalis from the foxglove plant I mentioned earlier.
I would not want to treat my cancer with vinca plants, though a very useful drug chemo drug is derived from the plant. Another cancer chemotherapy drug comes from yew. The problem with it is that enough for one treatment results in killing a lot of trees. In order for it to be available to the number of people who need it, ways to synthesize have been necessary. No one would have been able to treat breast cancer with yew bark 300 hundred years ago.
Yes, there is variation in the content of those raw plants and there is variation in each individual's body that takes a prescribed drug, hence, we are back on topic that some people will get side effects because everyone is different.
And, if someone is so sensitive to a drug that they nearly have a fatal reaction, perhaps something gentler, maybe even something from a plant, would have been better for them.
Maybe someday doctors will be better able to predict who those people are instead of treating everyone the same, if they can't make the medicines safer.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
