+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 16 of 30

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,715

    Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Which one gets the job done quicker?

    With the least amount of potential harm?

    Who's clinical trials should we believe and which should be scrapped?

  2. #2
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Quote Originally Posted by bibleman View Post
    Which one gets the job done quicker?
    Pharmacueticals will many times get the job done quicker, though most don't cure anything, they suppress it long enough for your body to heal itself.


    With the least amount of potential harm?
    And there's the real question. Most pharmacueticals will give you yeast infections (yes they will) which cause you to then have other problems, absorb less nutrition, whack your hormones off kilter and even compromise your kidneys and liver which are designed to rid your body of the harmful toxins in the first place.

    Herbs for the most part can be taken without harmful side effects. Some are very potent so start with a low dose first.

    Who's clinical trials should we believe and which should be scrapped?
    No clinical trials can be believed. The safest pharmacueticals are "legend drugs" aka; generics. Why? They have been used long enough on the general population to be able to predict what they will do.

    Any new drugs are alterations of legend drugs. Not anything new.


    Lady Mod
    Who doesn't use drugs at all.

    .

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,715

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    I have a crazy question....

    Please read the below copy/paste.

    This has been a point of curiosity for me for a long time....why does more often than not, studies into the efficacy of herbal suplementation and natural/holistic approaches and remedies seem to always come from out of the united states....

    I've seen clinical research findings being quoted that happened by unknown doctors in the Philipines, Malaysia, Singapore, China, Japan, etc.....but rarely from the US and hardly every peer reviewed....and usually only one 'test' or study that all info is based on...

    What are your thoughts?




    •Scientists have found evidence that CoQ-10 supplements may provide significant assistance in the prevention of a number of health disorders, especially cardiovascular disease.
    •Research conducted at the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, and funded by the National Heart Foundation of Australia, has shown that CoQ-10 may be very valuable to those who undergo heart surgery. Investigators found that elderly heart bypass patients given 300 milligrams of CoQ-10 (considered a high dose) recovered better and more quickly than those on placebo. The CoQ-10 helped the heart muscle to pump more efficiently and to better tolerate stress.
    •A series of studies conducted in Japan demonstrated CoQ-10’s ability to help reduce complications and further heart problems after a patient has experienced a first heart attack.
    •CoQ10 may also help to improve the symptoms of periodontal disease and immune deficiency. Some people use CoQ-10 as a performance-enhancer.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,715

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Quote Originally Posted by iamwil View Post
    It is all about money.

    You can't patent vit a, or c or white willow bark or any natural item...

    So if someone does research, anyone/everyone can benefit from the research.

    whereas if you have a propietary patented drug, you can make oodles till your patent dies...
    yes but what does the large lack of documentation and peer reviewed studies do to the voracity of the claims...?

  5. #5

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Quote Originally Posted by bibleman View Post
    yes but what does the large lack of documentation and peer reviewed studies do to the voracity of the claims...?
    First, I think you meant "veracity" or "truth" of the claims. Second, it seems this question was already answered by iamwil. Vitamins, herbal treatments, vibrational medicine, acupuncture and other natural approaches to health have been around for centuries and clearly demonstrated their value. THAT'S sufficient "proof". I have used homeopathy for almost 65 years: never been sick and neither have my kids or grandkids with minor exceptions. There are good drugs and bad drugs and times when you should consider them and times when you should not. Doing your homework is your solution. If you know what illness you have then use this valuable tool (the internet) to learn all you can about your problem and help yourself. Don't take someone else's advice ~ take your own. Wishing you well and "in wellness".

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,715

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Quote Originally Posted by MagicalMindz View Post
    First, I think you meant "veracity" or "truth" of the claims. Second, it seems this question was already answered by iamwil. Vitamins, herbal treatments, vibrational medicine, acupuncture and other natural approaches to health have been around for centuries and clearly demonstrated their value. THAT'S sufficient "proof". I have used homeopathy for almost 65 years: never been sick and neither have my kids or grandkids with minor exceptions. There are good drugs and bad drugs and times when you should consider them and times when you should not. Doing your homework is your solution. If you know what illness you have then use this valuable tool (the internet) to learn all you can about your problem and help yourself. Don't take someone else's advice ~ take your own. Wishing you well and "in wellness".


    Clearly demonstrated their value?

    How?

    And by what standard may we measure their success in healing? By tradition? By actual lab testing? What?



    Lost of people say that the value of prayer is clearly established too. But when it was actually put to the test, it failed to produce positive results...

    Not to get off subject with that.....but its the same thing.
    Relying on tradition isn't sufficient.

    Just because my mother forced me to shovel down golden seal and echinecica (sp?) growing up; a little blue vervain, some slippery elm when I had stomach troubles......doesn't mean that they hold any weight in a lab.

    This leads to a whole new question. Where's the FDA in this? Are they purposefully avoiding it because they are in cahoots with the pharm industry? Or are they avoiding it because its a study of agriculture, not medicine? or another reason?

  7. #7
    sojustask's Avatar
    sojustask is offline The Late, Great Lady Mod - Retired User Rank
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    12,866

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Quote Originally Posted by bibleman View Post
    Where's the FDA in this? Are they purposefully avoiding it because they are in cahoots with the pharm industry? Or are they avoiding it because its a study of agriculture, not medicine? or another reason?
    FDA approves Crestor for people who have no health problem to correct

    Big Pharma has been trending this direction for a long time: marketing medicines to people who don't need them and who have nothing wrong with their health. It's all part of a ploy to position prescription drugs as nutrients -- things you need to take on a regular basis in order to prevent disease.

    The FDA recently gave its nod of approval on the matter, announcing that Crestor can now be advertised and prescribed as a "preventive" medicine. No longer does a patient need to have anything wrong with them to warrant this expensive prescription medication: They only need to remember the brand name of the drug from television ads.

    This FDA approval for the marketing of Crestor to healthy people is a breakthrough for wealthy drug companies. Selling drugs only to people who are sick is, by definition, a limited market. Expanding drug revenues requires reaching people who have nothing wrong with them and convincing them that taking a cocktail of daily pharmaceuticals will somehow keep them healthy.

    All this is, of course, the greatest quackery we've yet seen from Big Pharma, because once this floodgate of "preventive pharmaceuticals" is unleashed, the drug companies will be positioned to promote a bewildering array of other preventive chemicals you're supposed to take at the same time. Did you take your anti-cancer pill today? How about your anti-diabetes pill? Anti-cholesterol pill? Don't forget your anti-Alzheimer's pill, too.


    Medications are not vitamins

    The very idea that these drugs can somehow prevent a person from becoming sick in the future strains the boundaries of scientific credibility. Only natural therapies like nutrition can prevent the onset of disease, not patented chemicals that don't belong in the human body in the first place.

    The logical argument of the drug companies who push these "preventive" prescriptions is essentially that the human body is deficient in pharmaceuticals, and that deficiency can only be corrected by taking whatever brand-name drugs they show you on television. Forget about deficiencies in zinc, or vitamin D, or living enzymes; what your body really needs is more synthetic chemicals!

    The FDA agrees with this loopy logic. And why wouldn't it? Subscribing to this pharmaceutical delusion is an easy way to instantly expand Big Pharma's customer base by tens of millions. Overnight, the market for Crestor ballooned from a few million people with high cholesterol to the entire U.S. population of 300 million people.

    If Crestor can help healthy people be healthier (which it can't, but let's play along with this delusion for the sake of argument), then it's only a matter of time before they start adding Crestor to infant formula. I mean, why not? If it's so good for healthy people, then it must make babies healthier, too, right?

    So let's add Crestor to sports drinks. Let's sprinkle it into the iodized salt supply. Let's drip it into the municipal water! (Don't laugh: This idea of dripping cholesterol drugs into the water supply has already been suggested by more than one doctor.) Let's merge the pharmaceutical supply with the food supply and charge people prescription drugs prices for "functional" foods laced with these chemicals!

    Pharmaceutical deficiency

    That's really where all this is headed. When medicines are approved as preventive "nutrients" for the human body, it's only a matter of time before the industry starts talking about your "pharmaceutical deficiency."

    Not taking any medications? You have a pharmaceutical deficiency, and it needs to be corrected by taking more prescription drugs. But don't bother with actual nutrition, because nutrients have absolutely no role in preventing disease, the FDA claims. No nutrient has ever been approved by the FDA for the prevention or treatment of any disease whatsoever.

    The message from the FDA is quite clear on this: Nutrients are useless, and you should eat medications as if they were vitamins.

    Patented Big Pharma chemicals, after all, provide all the nutrition you'll ever need!


    .

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    3,715

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    What are the ingredients of Crestor?







    By what standard should the FDA approve medications...?

    Who's word should they take on the subject?

    Should they take herbal lore and tradition into account or should they study it?

    When they cracked down on General Mills for statements on their oatmeal boxes that reflected the idea that oatmeal was good for heart health and cholesterol control....they did not demand censorship.....but simply to provide proof that oatmeal could do the things claimed or to retract the claims...



    The same is true for the herbal remedies and supplementation out there.


    It's why all the labels say that the stuff hasn't been evaluated by the FDA and is not meant to treat or cure any disease...

    They don't have the clinical research to back up the stuff....but the pharm drugs do...in most cases.

    Right?

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    2,193

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    It seems that a few pertinent and important details have been left out of the announcement regarding Crestor.

    An FDA advisory panel has overwhelmingly recommended that rosuvastatin (Crestor) can be approved for patients with no history of heart disease as long as they have elevated levels of the inflammatory marker C-reactive protein. Recent research suggests that patients with elevated basal levels of CRP are at an increased risk of diabetes, hypertension and cardiovascular disease.

    The new indication would be for men 50 or older and women 60 or older who have fasting LDL of less than 130 mg/dL, a highly sensitive CRP of 2.0 mg/L or greater, triglycerides of less than 500 mg/dL, and no prior history of heart attack or stroke, or coronary heart disease risk.

    "If the FDA accepts this recommendation, it will expand the number of Americans eligible for statin therapy by millions," said Steven E. Nissen, MD, chair of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic.

    James Stein, MD, of the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, called the vote "very significant," adding that, if approved, "it will also have the (possibly) unintended consequence of increasing highly sensitive CRP testing in the U.S."

    Cam Patterson, MD, of the University of North Carolina School of Medicine, agreed with Stein. "It's been difficult to find a compelling reason to order CRP levels on patients," Patterson said. "This is guidance from the FDA about how to take high CRP levels into account, and that is good news."

    Patients were randomized to 20 mg of rosuvastatin for 1.9 years, which reduced median LDL cholesterol to 55 mg/dL, down from a median of 108 mg/dL at baseline. The corresponding relative reduction in the rate of MI, stroke, arterial revascularization, or cardiovascular death was 44% (P<0.00001).

    And for Bibleman's question, here are the indgredients of Crestor:

    CRESTOR (rosuvastatin calcium) is a synthetic lipid lowering agent for oral administration.

    The chemical name for rosuvastatin calcium is bis[(E)-7-[4( 4-fluorophenyl)-6-isopropyl-2[ methyl (methylsulfonyl) amino] pyrimidin-5-yl](3R,5S)­3,5- dihydroxyhept-6-enoic acid] calcium salt with the following structural formula:



    The empirical formula for rosuvastatin calcium is (C22H27FN3O6S)2Ca and the molecular weight is 1001.14. Rosuvastatin calcium is a white amorphous powder that is sparingly soluble in water and methanol, and slightly soluble in ethanol. Rosuvastatin calcium is a hydrophilic compound with a partition coefficient (octanol/water) of 0.13 at pH of 7.0.

    Inactive Ingredients: Each tablet contains: microcrystalline cellulose NF, lactose monohydrate NF, tribasic calcium phosphate NF, crospovidone NF, magnesium stearate NF, hypromellose NF, triacetin NF, titanium dioxide USP, yellow ferric oxide, and red ferric oxide NF.


    Also, the Jupiter Trial was conducted to determine if patients with elevated CRP levels but without hyperlipidemia might benefit from statin therapy. Statins were selected because they have been proven to reduce levels of CRP. The trial found that patients taking rosuvastatin with elevated CRP levels experienced a significant decrease in the incidence of major cardiovascular events.

    The trial analyzed 17,802 patients without evidence of heart disease but with high CRP levels. In 2008, results presented at the American Heart Association meeting and published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that patients with low-to-normal LDL cholesterol receiving rosuvastatin had a significant lower rate of major cardiovascular events, compared to patients taking a placebo.

    This trial and other studies are why The FDA has now approved the expansion of the use of Crestor, but only for those patients who meet the criterior stated above. The use of this statin drug is not just willy nilly recommended for use by anyone.

    The statements made by the author Mike Adams in the article cited in Natural News are ridiculous, inflamatory, mis-leading and simply untrue.

    This quote of his statement alone, "Overnight, the market for Crestor ballooned from a few million people with high cholesterol to the entire U.S. population of 300 million people" is pure hogwash.

    The fact that Mike has no credentials whatsoever in medicine, or any science field is also very telling. Not to mention that this site and it's sponsors are in the business of selling all sorts of "health" products and supplements. No wonder they are so anti perscription drugs. Big surprise. They have an obvious agenda. He calls himself "The Health Ranger." Sheeesh. That's impressive.
    Last edited by put it out there baby; 01-17-2010 at 01:02 AM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,043

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Quote Originally Posted by bibleman View Post
    Which one gets the job done quicker?

    With the least amount of potential harm?

    Who's clinical trials should we believe and which should be scrapped?
    I believe herbal suppliments work better and have a far less potential for harm than phamaceutical medication in the long run.
    "The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
    ...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two".

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    1,784

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight-mare View Post
    I believe herbal suppliments work better and have a far less potential for harm than phamaceutical medication in the long run.
    Herbal could work for prevention, but they are mostly useless for treatments.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    607

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Quote Originally Posted by Knight-mare View Post
    I believe herbal suppliments work better and have a far less potential for harm than phamaceutical medication in the long run.
    How can you possibly make a statement like that ???

    How many "herbal supplements" would you guess are available on the general market at any one time ???

    The same goes for "pharmaceuticals"

    Are you saying, for example, that "herbal supplements" "work better" (to use your words) at combating infection than antibiotics ???

    I don't know where you live, but here in civilization diseases which have destroyed lives for thousands of years such as polio, "blood poisoning" smallpox, malaria and a squillion others are almost unheard of since the advent of "pharmaceuticals"

    As recently as the 1940s and 50s people were still dying from the "blood poisoning" resulting from simple cuts and infections.

    An informed person is one who uses "whatever it takes" to obtain the best results and that does NOT include making an "either/or" decision based on some philosophical objection.
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    350

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    The issue for me, is that herbals are not regulated and the active ingredients are not measurable.
    Pharmaceuticals are mostly derived from herbals then syntheticly copied to allow the active ingredient concentration gradients to be accurately known. Sometimes they are also boosted with another drug to increase their effectiveness.
    ie aspirn and willow bark. ie codine forte, or anything with the word plus on the end.
    Lets stick with something we all know such as asprin, it cam e originally from willow bark, but it has serious implications for those with Gi Issues or asthma, the pharma brands have been modified to reduce these adverse events but still allow the antipyretic and analgesic outcomes to be measurable...ie if you weigh this much and take this much it will last for this long and relieve this level of pain/fever in 99.99% of the population.
    The only difference between a drug and a poison is really the amount you take...not the compound...companies spend millions getting this right.

    Herbal is just a hippie far out way of saying this is not fully tested and the results may be nothing or way over the top. It like saying we the herbal supplier dont promise anything as we dont know ourselves. They usually (rightfully so) err on the side of safety so much that you end up paying for essence of herbal...not a real herbal prep.

    Your dollar and health, though.

    1948 UN declaration of human rights holds that it is your right to refuse treatment, hopefully you will do it in a educated way though.

    here is a link that is heavily cited( 131 times), and considered authorative on the issue, I cannot give full access but if you have a way to get e-library info you should be able to find it easy enough in the full version.
    http://journals.lww.com/ejcpr/Abstra...tion_of.8.aspx

    this one below deals with adverse events ( medical jargon for side effects / bad outcomes)
    http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/cont...ha;111/23/3016
    Last edited by consolidation; 02-09-2010 at 04:23 AM. Reason: out of practice with english again

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    607

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    My view is that anyone who chooses one OR the other based on some preconceived philosophy is simply depriving themselves of the best possible outcome.

    Considering herbal supplementation as a "complementary" therapy and subjecting it to the same sort of scrutiny as one would any ingested substance is a totally different proposition than simply swallowing something because it's "herbal" or "natural" or "has been used for centuries by a little known group of Patagonian monks"

    Likewise, a patient who rejects any "alternative therapy" out of hand is possibly depriving themselves.

    There is no reputable doctor who can or will 100% guarantee the outcome of ANY treatment, just as no alternative medicine practitioner should consider his or her treatment to be 100% effective, 100% of the time for 100% of the people.
    The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    1,043

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Quote Originally Posted by littleroundman View Post
    How can you possibly make a statement like that ???

    How many "herbal supplements" would you guess are available on the general market at any one time ???

    The same goes for "pharmaceuticals"

    Are you saying, for example, that "herbal supplements" "work better" (to use your words) at combating infection than antibiotics ???

    I don't know where you live, but here in civilization diseases which have destroyed lives for thousands of years such as polio, "blood poisoning" smallpox, malaria and a squillion others are almost unheard of since the advent of "pharmaceuticals"

    As recently as the 1940s and 50s people were still dying from the "blood poisoning" resulting from simple cuts and infections.

    An informed person is one who uses "whatever it takes" to obtain the best results and that does NOT include making an "either/or" decision based on some philosophical objection.
    I believe that herbal supplements/natural medicine is far better than pharamaceutical medication. Do I think that "herbal suppliments" works better at combating infections than antibiotics? In some cases, yes.

    Pharmaceutical medication has way too many side effects and may do more harm than good.
    "The mind bends and twists in order to deal with the horrors of life...
    ...sometimes the mind bends so much it snaps in two".

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    350

    Re: Pharmaceuticals vs Herbal Supplementation

    Dear Knight-mare ,
    I am aware it is your Human right to choose but your statement is seriously flawed from a scientific, statistical and even a common sense POV and is medically called concrete thinking.

    Good luck and I will pray you stumble upon something that has the capacity and potency to help you occassionally.

Similar Threads

  1. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals
    By tmswafford in forum Work at Home Scams
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-03-2014, 12:29 AM
  2. Ackman on CNN - Herbal goes after the poor ....
    By Yawn... in forum MLM Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-08-2013, 08:06 PM
  3. Inka Herbal
    By stonedboat in forum Mail Order Scams
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-13-2012, 10:09 PM
  4. Herbal Care Direct Ripoffs
    By DeeZee in forum Internet Scams
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-18-2011, 08:20 AM
  5. Red Clover Herbal Material.
    By coontie in forum General Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-25-2008, 07:53 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •