Ayurvedic asthma care

[Blaze 79]

If anyone uses ayurvedic treatments to deal with asthma, I would appreciate it
if you could contact me. I an conducting research to learn if it is an
effective method of treatment. Your privacy is protected.

[ladeeda]

Please don't let that stop you. I encourage you to keep looking for
possible cures. You never know what might work.

P.S. I understand a positive attitude and an open mind helps -

[Colin Campbell]

My concern is that I begining to suspect that "keep an open
mind" means: "believe anything a salesman tells you."

An 'open mind' is willing to research and evaluate the
evidence on an objective basis.

[leap...@earthlink.net]

Colin, Ayurveda is a system of medicine, not a salesman. If you want
to research Ayurveda, a number of books are available on the subject
on www.amazon.com

Ayurvedic herbs may help where Western medicine doesn't.

LL

In article <353F5832...@pacbell.net>,

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:
>
> Colin Campbell wrote:
> >
> >I just did a quick database search and found no scientific
> >research that would indicate a potential effectivness in the
> >treatment of asthma.
>
> What database did you search? Does the database only contain
> research data on Western medicine, or does it contain any
> information in Eastern medicine?

My favorite database is a complete listing of articles which
have appeared in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific
journals. I prefer to see articles that have gone through a
review process and meet the methodological and statistical
standards for scientific research.

>
> Have you tried searching for ayurveda on www.amazon.com ?
> You will find lots of books on this topic. Perhaps you could
> take a look at one of those books.

The problem is that there is no form of quality control
process for these books. Typically these books are
published on the basis of 'what will sell' with no concern
at all for accuracy. I am very carefull to select books
that contain information that can be checked by reviewing
sources and references.

[Colin Campbell]

leap...@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> Colin, Ayurveda is a system of medicine, not a salesman. If you want
> to research Ayurveda, a number of books are available on the subject
> on www.amazon.com

I would rather research the sceince. Anybody can write a
book, and there are many books out there that contain
nothing but junk science.

>
> Ayurvedic herbs may help where Western medicine doesn't.

And they may wind up doing more harm than good. This is one
of the reasons I like to look up the scientific research on
a treatment - too many herbal remedies have dangerous side
effects.

Maybe if you supply the names of the herbs I can look up the
actual research that has been conducted on them?

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>I just did a quick database search and found no scientific
>research that would indicate a potential effectivness in the
>treatment of asthma.

What database did you search? Does the database only contain
research data on Western medicine, or does it contain any
information in Eastern medicine?

Have you tried searching for ayurveda on www.amazon.com ?

You will find lots of books on this topic. Perhaps you could
take a look at one of those books.

LL

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell wrote:
>> What database did you search? Does the database only contain
>> research data on Western medicine, or does it contain any

>> information on Eastern medicine?

>
>My favorite database is a complete listing of articles which
>have appeared in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific
>journals. I prefer to see articles that have gone through a
>review process and meet the methodological and statistical
>standards for scientific research.

In other words you will not try anything but modern western
medicine.

That's a shame because ayurvedic medicine may work in cases
where modern western medicine doesn't.

Ayurveda is a 5000 year old empirical system of medicine.
Reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals did not exist
5000 years ago. Yet ayurvedic medicine works for many people.

>> Have you tried searching for ayurveda on www.amazon.com ?
>> You will find lots of books on this topic. Perhaps you could
>> take a look at one of those books.
>

>The problem is that there is no form of quality control
>process for these books. Typically these books are
>published on the basis of 'what will sell' with no concern
>at all for accuracy. I am very carefull to select books
>that contain information that can be checked by reviewing
>sources and references.

There are many authors with high reputation, such as Deepak
Chopra. There are many western western doctors (Deepak
Chopra has an M.D.) that know about ayurveda. If you don't
have an M.D. yourself perhaps you can read what these M.D.s
have to say about ayurveda. (For example there is a book on
ayurveda by Scott Gerson M.D.).

LL

[Leapin Larry]

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> >My favorite database is a complete listing of articles which
> >have appeared in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific
> >journals. I prefer to see articles that have gone through a
> >review process and meet the methodological and statistical
> >standards for scientific research.
>
> In other words you will not try anything but modern western
> medicine.

Incorrect. I am willing to review anything that has a solid
scientific basis or even has been demonstrated to be safe
and effective (even if the exact method of operation is not
understood).

I am not impressed my hype and inflated claims. If the
treatment works as well as you say it does then there should
be some actual research conducted to demonstrate this.

>
> That's a shame because ayurvedic medicine may work in cases
> where modern western medicine doesn't.
>
> Ayurveda is a 5000 year old empirical system of medicine.
> Reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals did not exist
> 5000 years ago. Yet ayurvedic medicine works for many people.

Many 5,000 year old medical treatments have benn proven to
be unsafe, ineffective or both when subjected to objective
scrutiny. For example arsenic is an 'ancient' remedy that
has been discarded when it was discovered that the
'ancients' did not have any clue as to what they were doing.

> There are many authors with high reputation, such as Deepak
> Chopra. There are many western western doctors (Deepak
> Chopra has an M.D.) that know about ayurveda. If you don't
> have an M.D. yourself perhaps you can read what these M.D.s
> have to say about ayurveda. (For example there is a book on
> ayurveda by Scott Gerson M.D.).

Deepak Chorpa is not a reputable doctor. Anybody who
diagnoses you using a web site questionerre is a dangerous
quack. Another thing is that I do not take the title MD as
meaning that the guy actually kb=nows what he is doing. I
always ask a few specific questions about asthma to a new
doctor to satisfy myself that he actually knows what he is
doing.

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>Incorrect. I am willing to review anything that has a solid
>scientific basis or even has been demonstrated to be safe
>and effective (even if the exact method of operation is not
>understood).

Ayurveda is practiced widely today in India, and it has been for
thousands of years. One of the advantages of ayurvedic medicine is
that it is far safer than western medicine. I have pointed you to
many books that are available on the subject but you believe that
books cannot be trusted because the authors are just out to make
a fast buck.

>I am not impressed my hype and inflated claims. If the
>treatment works as well as you say it does then there should
>be some actual research conducted to demonstrate this.

Where is the hype and inflated claims?

All I am saying is that it is worth trying, if your doctor agrees
that ayurvedic medicine is not harmful. I have tried ayurvedic
medicine and it appeared to bring me relief where western medicine
did not. There are no other claims. If western medicine has failed
you try ayurveda -- it may work for you, or it may not. Ayurveda
is not dangerous. It has been used too long and too widely to be
dangerous. But check with your doctor any way.

>Many 5,000 year old medical treatments have benn proven to
>be unsafe, ineffective or both when subjected to objective
>scrutiny. For example arsenic is an 'ancient' remedy that
>has been discarded when it was discovered that the
>'ancients' did not have any clue as to what they were doing.

So why not read a book where modern doctors examine the ayurvedic
system of medicine? Hopefully these modern doctors have a clue.

>Deepak Chorpa is not a reputable doctor. Anybody who
>diagnoses you using a web site questionerre is a dangerous
>quack. Another thing is that I do not take the title MD as
>meaning that the guy actually kb=nows what he is doing. I
>always ask a few specific questions about asthma to a new
>doctor to satisfy myself that he actually knows what he is
>doing.

Now you are beginning to sound like a dangerous quack. Are you
really qualified to test these doctors? Do you really know more
than someone with an MD?

Deepak Chopra may not seem like a reputable doctor to you. But
he does, to thousands others. Have you read any books that
Chopra has written? In any case, Chopra is not the only MD who
has written about ayurveda. May be you can pick one of the other
books -- unless you believe all MDs are quacks out to make a
fast buck.

LL

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> Ayurveda is practiced widely today in India, and it has been for
> thousands of years. One of the advantages of ayurvedic medicine is
> that it is far safer than western medicine. I have pointed you to
> many books that are available on the subject but you believe that
> books cannot be trusted because the authors are just out to make
> a fast buck.

The problem with the books is that there is no way to know
if the information is accurate. If I cannot verify the
accuracy of the information then how can I rely on it?

>
> >I am not impressed my hype and inflated claims. If the
> >treatment works as well as you say it does then there should
> >be some actual research conducted to demonstrate this.
>
> Where is the hype and inflated claims?

Any claim that any particular treatment modality will treat
any particular disease is hype and/or an inflated claim
unless the proponents can point out a double-blinded
placebo-controled clinical trial that demonstrated
effectivness.

>
> All I am saying is that it is worth trying, if your doctor agrees
> that ayurvedic medicine is not harmful. I have tried ayurvedic
> medicine and it appeared to bring me relief where western medicine
> did not. There are no other claims. If western medicine has failed
> you try ayurveda -- it may work for you, or it may not. Ayurveda
> is not dangerous. It has been used too long and too widely to be
> dangerous. But check with your doctor any way.

That is what they said about colloidal silver - untill the
stuff was tested for safety. If your technique has not ever
been _tested_ for safety then you have no idea whether it
really is safe.

Another problem is that you mentioned that this treatment
uses herbs - before I can accept that these herbs are safe I
want to look up the existing safety data. Can you supply
the names of the herbs?

> So why not read a book where modern doctors examine the ayurvedic
> system of medicine? Hopefully these modern doctors have a clue.

Because I have nothing to check the book against. Since I
have no way of verifying whether the information in the book
is correct I cannot give a 'confidence rating' to the
information in it.

> Now you are beginning to sound like a dangerous quack. Are you
> really qualified to test these doctors? Do you really know more
> than someone with an MD?

No, but I know enough about asthma to be able to satisfy
myself that a particular doctor is current on the theory and
treatment of asthma. One rule I follow is that I will not
accept treatment advice for my asthma from somebody who
knows less about asthma than I do.

>
> Deepak Chopra may not seem like a reputable doctor to you. But
> he does, to thousands others. Have you read any books that
> Chopra has written? In any case, Chopra is not the only MD who
> has written about ayurveda. May be you can pick one of the other
> books -- unless you believe all MDs are quacks out to make a
> fast buck.

Not all MD's. Just he ones (like Chopra) who kill people by
telling them to take 'alternative' treatment for a treatable
cancer. Of course since Chopra gave up his medical license
he cannot be sued over this because he is no longer a doctor
and no longer has professional liability.

>
> LL

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>The problem with the books is that there is no way to know
>if the information is accurate. If I cannot verify the
>accuracy of the information then how can I rely on it?

I can understand your position, but it is not always practical.
Do you believe that the earth is round? Have you verified for
yourself that it is indeed round? If not, how can you believe
it? My point is that it is sometimes necessary to believe other
people based on their backgrounds and education. This is
especially so when it comes to ayurveda because it is an
empirical system of medicine. If many MDs say there is
something to ayurveda then I am willing to give it a try
without actually verifying the information myself.

Scepticism does have its place, however. For example if an
unusual method of treatment is only supported by one doctor
then I may be a bit sceptic. Ayurveda is different because
it is respected by many doctors trained in western medicine.
And it was not invented yesterday by someone trying to make
a quick buck.

>> Where is the hype and inflated claims?
>
>Any claim that any particular treatment modality will treat
>any particular disease is hype and/or an inflated claim
>unless the proponents can point out a double-blinded
>placebo-controled clinical trial that demonstrated
>effectivness.

Again, your position is understandable -- it is just not
necessarily practical. The reason I tried ayurveda is because
albuterol didn't work well enough. (I still use albuterol
though.) I would encourage others to try it too -- if their
doctors agree that that it is not harmful.

I too wish that someone will conduct a clinical trial to see
if ayurvedic medicine is really effective. But in the absense
of such trials I will just go by what the MDs have written in
the books.

>That is what they said about colloidal silver - untill the
>stuff was tested for safety. If your technique has not ever
>been _tested_ for safety then you have no idea whether it
>really is safe.

Ayurveda has been around long enough and popular (atleast in
India) that if it is dangerous then that fact will be well
known by now.

>Another problem is that you mentioned that this treatment
>uses herbs - before I can accept that these herbs are safe I
>want to look up the existing safety data. Can you supply
>the names of the herbs?

Yes I will try to do this. Unfortunately the names I have at
the moment are in Sanskrit so they will probably be of no use
to you. I need to find the Western names for these herbs. You
can also search for ayurveda and asthma on Altavista. I remember
seeing names of ayurvedic herbs used to treat asthma somewhere.

In fact here is one such site I found using Altavista:

http://www.niam.com/mediplnt.htm

This site is maintained by Scott Gerson who has an M.D.
although I know the M.D. means nothing to you. This doctor is
researching ayurvedic herbs so he may be able to give you
some scientific answers.

>Because I have nothing to check the book against. Since I
>have no way of verifying whether the information in the book
>is correct I cannot give a 'confidence rating' to the
>information in it.

Again I have to ask you if you have verified for yourself
whether the earth is round. People have taken pictures of
earth from space but presumably you haven't been to space
yourself. Sometimes you have to trust other people.

>No, but I know enough about asthma to be able to satisfy
>myself that a particular doctor is current on the theory and
>treatment of asthma. One rule I follow is that I will not
>accept treatment advice for my asthma from somebody who
>knows less about asthma than I do.

But how do you know about asthma? Do you have formal training
in medicine, or are you just some quack who picked up bits and
pieces of information from here and there?

>Not all MD's. Just he ones (like Chopra) who kill people by
>telling them to take 'alternative' treatment for a treatable
>cancer. Of course since Chopra gave up his medical license
>he cannot be sued over this because he is no longer a doctor
>and no longer has professional liability.

You have an extreme position. Just because a treatment is
'alternative' doesn't mean it kills people. Please realize
that to someone in an eastern country who grew up with
ayurveda, Western medicine that you are used to, is 'alternative'.

Also, since you like to see evidence for everything I have to
ask you if you have any evidence that Chopra has killed people.

If you don't have any evidence then you are just a hypocrite.

LL

[Chris Owens]

"Leapin Larry" <leap...@earthlink.net> writes:

> Colin Campbell wrote:
> >
> >The problem with the books is that there is no way to know
> >if the information is accurate. If I cannot verify the
> >accuracy of the information then how can I rely on it?
>
> I can understand your position, but it is not always practical.

Sure it is, when you are talking about my life and health.

> Do you believe that the earth is round?

It isn't a matter of belief, but scientific fact.

> Have you verified for
> yourself that it is indeed round?

Sure have. Read the science, saw the proofs.

> My point is that it is sometimes necessary to believe other
> people based on their backgrounds and education.

Why? I have known some incredibly wrong-headed experts
in my time.

> This is
> especially so when it comes to ayurveda because it is an
> empirical system of medicine.

There isn't any other kind. If, empiracally, ayruveda works, then, statistically,
you should be able to demonstrate that fact. It's called a clinical trial.

> If many MDs say there is
> something to ayurveda then I am willing to give it a try
> without actually verifying the information myself.

Be my guest; but don't expect me to jump on the bandwagon. I have
more concern for my own life and health than to believe ANYBODY
without seeking out the source literature.

> >Any claim that any particular treatment modality will treat
> >any particular disease is hype and/or an inflated claim
> >unless the proponents can point out a double-blinded
> >placebo-controled clinical trial that demonstrated
> >effectivness.
>
> Again, your position is understandable -- it is just not
> necessarily practical.

Whyever not?

> Ayurveda has been around long enough and popular (atleast in
> India) that if it is dangerous then that fact will be well
> known by now.

Tell me, how long did they use bleeding as a treatment? That's right,
millenia. Now, would you generally consider bleeding an appropriate
treatment for fever?

> Again I have to ask you if you have verified for yourself
> whether the earth is round. People have taken pictures of
> earth from space but presumably you haven't been to space
> yourself. Sometimes you have to trust other people.

No. You have to trust other people's EVIDENCE. Now, the number
of people who have a] circumnavigated the globe, and b] photographed
the Earth from space is quite large. Further, every photograph of OTHER
planets shows them to be globes. So, the accumulated EVIDENCE
is persuasive that the earth is round. I am not accepting the word of
any single person, but the word of many people, backed by evidence.
Quite a difference from what you propose.

> But how do you know about asthma?

ANYONE of normal intelligence, who is willing to spend the time, can
self-educate him/herself on ANY subject. You might want to try it sometime.
BTW, I don't know Colin's qualifications; but, *I* happen to have advanced
degrees [yes, plural] in the biological sciences, do biological research
and clinical diagnosis, and am quite familiar with the scientific literature.

Chris Owens

[Leapin Larry]

Chris Owens wrote:
>> >
>> >The problem with the books is that there is no way to know
>> >if the information is accurate. If I cannot verify the
>> >accuracy of the information then how can I rely on it?
>>
>> I can understand your position, but it is not always practical.
>
>Sure it is, when you are talking about my life and health.

Well, if you have advanced degrees in biology then it may be
practical for you. But this strategy is not practical for most
people. It certainly isn't practical for me because I don't have
any degrees in biology. I go by what the M.D.s tell me. If it
is something serious then I may get a second opinion. But that's
it. Verifying all the information myself is not an option for me.

>> This is
>> especially so when it comes to ayurveda because it is an
>> empirical system of medicine.
>
>There isn't any other kind. If, empiracally, ayruveda works, then, statistically,
>you should be able to demonstrate that fact. It's called a clinical trial.

Apparently clinical trials are being conducted. Please check out
http://www.niam.com/

>> If many MDs say there is
>> something to ayurveda then I am willing to give it a try
>> without actually verifying the information myself.
>
>Be my guest; but don't expect me to jump on the bandwagon. I have
>more concern for my own life and health than to believe ANYBODY
>without seeking out the source literature.

I wish I had this option. Unfortunately I don't have the advanced
degrees in biology that you have. So I go by what the M.D.s say.
(And not just one M.D. -- lots endorse ayurveda, and I am yet to
come across an M.D. that considers ayurveda harmful.)

>> >Any claim that any particular treatment modality will treat
>> >any particular disease is hype and/or an inflated claim
>> >unless the proponents can point out a double-blinded
>> >placebo-controled clinical trial that demonstrated
>> >effectivness.
>>
>> Again, your position is understandable -- it is just not
>> necessarily practical.
>
>Whyever not?

Because ayurveda is not yet popular enough in the west for someone
to put the resources to prove or disprove its effectiveness. And
in India where it is popular, no one may have thought of doing
clinical trials because ayurveda has been trusted for centuries
and no one is questioning its effectiveness.

In any case, Scott Gerson M.D. is apparently doing some research
that may satisfy you. I mentioned the web site earlier.

>> Ayurveda has been around long enough and popular (atleast in
>> India) that if it is dangerous then that fact will be well
>> known by now.
>
>Tell me, how long did they use bleeding as a treatment? That's right,
>millenia. Now, would you generally consider bleeding an appropriate
>treatment for fever?

And by now we know bleeding as a method of treatment is dangerous,
don't we? The same way, we would know by now if ayurveda was
dangerous.

>Further, every photograph of OTHER
>planets shows them to be globes. So, the accumulated EVIDENCE
>is persuasive that the earth is round. I am not accepting the word of
>any single person, but the word of many people, backed by evidence.
>Quite a difference from what you propose.

I am not knowledgeable enough about ayurveda to tell you what
evidence is available to support ayurveda. But if you go to
www.amazon.com you can find lots of books on the subject, and
many of them are written by MDs. If you are interested perhaps
you can take a look at one of those books.

>> But how do you know about asthma?
>
>ANYONE of normal intelligence, who is willing to spend the time, can
>self-educate him/herself on ANY subject.

Sure, but enough knowledge to challenge an M.D.? Either the M.D.
must be really bad or you must have amassed such a large amount of
knowledge through informal means that you are a danger to yourself.

>BTW, I don't know Colin's qualifications; but, *I* happen to have advanced
>degrees [yes, plural] in the biological sciences, do biological research
>and clinical diagnosis, and am quite familiar with the scientific literature.

Well, if you have formal training then I wasn't talking about you.

LL

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>Another problem is that you mentioned that this treatment
>uses herbs - before I can accept that these herbs are safe I
>want to look up the existing safety data. Can you supply
>the names of the herbs?
>

Colin, here are some of the herbs. I am interested in the
safety information too, so I would appreciate it if you will
share whatever information you find.

Adhatoda vasica
Boerhaavia diffusa
Hyoscamus niger
Ocimum sanctum
Sida cordifolia
Solanum xanthocarpum

(Using these herbs without first consulting an ayurvedic
physician could be dangerous.)

LL

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> I can understand your position, but it is not always practical.

> Do you believe that the earth is round? Have you verified for
> yourself that it is indeed round? If not, how can you believe
> it?

Because I can validate the information from other sources.
I can go back and review the research that was done to
confirm the 'roundness' of the earth and then find other
sources where the first research was varified by yet more
research.

My point is that it is sometimes necessary to believe other

> people based on their backgrounds and education. This is

> especially so when it comes to ayurveda because it is an

> empirical system of medicine. If many MDs say there is

> something to ayurveda then I am willing to give it a try
> without actually verifying the information myself.

If I took this attitude then I would be using albuterol
4X/day as my only asthma medication. Just because somebody
is an MD does not necessirally mean that they are competent.

What this seems to boid down into is that I would have to be
willing to believe in something that has no real factual
basis.

> Ayurveda has been around long enough and popular (atleast in
> India) that if it is dangerous then that fact will be well
> known by now.

Nope. This is why all treatment modalities should be tested
for safety. I gave you example of several treatments that
wer 'assumed' to be safe because they had been around for
thousands of years - but were found to be unsafe when
actually tested.

> Again I have to ask you if you have verified for yourself
> whether the earth is round. People have taken pictures of
> earth from space but presumably you haven't been to space
> yourself. Sometimes you have to trust other people.

I 'trust' very few people with my lungs.

> But how do you know about asthma? Do you have formal training
> in medicine, or are you just some quack who picked up bits and
> pieces of information from here and there?

Actually, an educated patient has an advantage over his/her
doctor in this regard. The doctor has to learn about and
keep current on all diseases while the patient only needs to
learn about one.

You can learn a _lot_ about asthma by studying the disease
and using your doctor as an instructor. In fact I have
discovered that most doctors _love_ to talk about the
technical aspects of asthma and its treatment (my specalist
says that he enjoys my appointments because he gets to talk
about the 'intresting' stuff).

> You have an extreme position. Just because a treatment is
> 'alternative' doesn't mean it kills people. Please realize
> that to someone in an eastern country who grew up with
> ayurveda, Western medicine that you are used to, is 'alternative'.

But discouraging a patient to try an unproven treatment
modality when there is a conventional treatment that is
_known_ to be effective, and having that patient die as a
result - shows us Dr. Chopras priorties are with pushing a
belief system, not with the welfare of his 'patients.'

>
> Also, since you like to see evidence for everything I have to
> ask you if you have any evidence that Chopra has killed people.

Go look up the articles on Dr. Chopra at:
www.quackwatch.com
www.hcrc.org

[grog]

All of this brings up the real serious question:

How many have DIED as a result of accepted Western treatments/ drugs.

Reading the warning labels/pamphlets given with most prescription and
OTC drugs lets me know they are a long way from perfect. The results
I've seen here and in my business life show me that "current asthma
treatment " is a changing thing. What were most of the current things
originally ? Experimental. Most current drugs do not have the 5000
year history of use. The long-term effects can only be guessed at
based on research which may or may not be accurate in it's
forecasting.

I am not suggesting a blind acceptance of all forms of alternative
medicine. I AM suggesting that it be looked at seriously. The
eating rules given to the Jews a few thousand years ago made very
little sense to them I would bet. But if you look at them with what
we now know of their cooking habits ands germs... Makes a heck of a
lot of sense. Granted some of these eastern/alternative/native
remedies may sound absurd to a traditional western-oriented mind. But
there may very well be some grain of truth or value in them. I am not
conceited enough to deny it simply because it's "different."

"Leapin Larry" <leap...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>
>>Not all MD's. Just he ones (like Chopra) who kill people by
>>telling them to take 'alternative' treatment for a treatable
>>cancer. Of course since Chopra gave up his medical license
>>he cannot be sued over this because he is no longer a doctor
>>and no longer has professional liability.
>
>

>You have an extreme position. Just because a treatment is
>'alternative' doesn't mean it kills people. Please realize
>that to someone in an eastern country who grew up with
>ayurveda, Western medicine that you are used to, is 'alternative'.
>

>Also, since you like to see evidence for everything I have to
>ask you if you have any evidence that Chopra has killed people.
>

>If you don't have any evidence then you are just a hypocrite.

Harold Spatz
Independent Alpine Air Dealer

hrs...@aol.com
hrse...@ix.netcom.com
hrse...@juno.com
corporate Web Site http://www.alpineindustries.com

[grog]

Chris Owens <cao...@redsuspenders.com> wrote:

>Tell me, how long did they use bleeding as a treatment? That's right,
>millenia. Now, would you generally consider bleeding an appropriate
>treatment for fever?

Good question ! No. I wouldn't. . At the time it was the accepted
mainstream treatment though. Blessed by Science and the medical
community.

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> Well, if you have advanced degrees in biology then it may be
> practical for you. But this strategy is not practical for most
> people. It certainly isn't practical for me because I don't have
> any degrees in biology. I go by what the M.D.s tell me. If it
> is something serious then I may get a second opinion. But that's
> it. Verifying all the information myself is not an option for me.

Why not? I am nothing more than a well-educated asthma
patient who has spent the time and effort required to get a
basic understanding of the disease and its treatment. Why
can't you do the same?

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> Colin, here are some of the herbs. I am interested in the
> safety information too, so I would appreciate it if you will
> share whatever information you find.
>
> Adhatoda vasica

A possible expectorant effect has been found with this herb.

The bad news is that it is a suspected teratogen (causes
birth defects).

See:
J Ethnopharmacol 1992 Apr;36(2):147-154
Commonly used Indian abortifacient plants with special
reference to their teratologic effects in rats.
Nath D, Sethi N, Singh RK, Jain AK

Are the poeple prescribng these aware that this should
_never_ be used on someone who is even suspected of being
pregnant?

Your comments on the 'safety' of these herbs implies that
there are no clear safety warnings provided by the people
selling the herbs.

Also be aware that this product needs very carefull storage
and handling procedures or it can become contiminated with a
toxic mold.

See:
Mycopathologia 1991 Mar;113(3):187-190
Toxigenic Aspergillus flavus and aflatoxins in Sri Lankan
medicinal plant material.
Abeywickrama K, Bean GA

> Boerhaavia diffusa

This appears to be an herbal remedy used to treat uniary
tract disorders. It also appears to be used to induce
abortions. It has been tested for teratogenic effects and
none were discovered.

It appears to be an intinflamitory, but with greather side
effects than the corticosteroids.
See:
Adv Contracept 1991 Mar;7(1):67-76
Management of IUD-associated menorrhagia in female rhesus
monkeys (Macaca mulatta).
Barthwal M, Srivastava K

Another herb that should be avoided by pregnant women?

> Hyoscamus niger

This plant appears to be commonly used in genetics research
- I got over 200 pages of results. Might take a while to
wade through them and pull out the ones that apply.

This herb has been associtaed with an increased asthmatic
response.
See:
Am J Respir Cell Mol Biol 1998 Mar;18(3):435-440
Concentration- and time-dependent upregulation and release
of the cytokines MIP-2, KC, TNF, and MIP-1alpha in rat
alveolar macrophages by fungal spores implicated in airway
inflammation.
Shahan TA, Sorenson WG, Paulauskis JD, Morey R, Lewis DM

From a brief overview of abstracts, I get the impression
that drugs in this herb seem to be under evaluation of its
potential for development as a anitboitic.

> Ocimum sanctum

I found one study indicating that a drug in the herb may be
usefull if developed as a drug to help diabetics control
chlorestol levels.

Chemicals extracted from the herb appear to be under
evaluation for a possible procetive effect from damage from
radation therapy in cancer.

Please note: The herb as been found to decrease the sex
drive in male rats.
See:
Indian J Physiol Pharmacol 1992 Apr;36(2):109-111
Effect of short term administration of Tulsi (Ocimum sanctum
Linn.) on reproductive behaviour of adult male rats.
Kantak NM, Gogate MG

> Sida cordifolia

Only one scientific study found. This was evaluationg its
potential as a anti-plaque product.

> Solanum xanthocarpum

This was tested in 1971 for its effects on asthma - due to
the age however I cannot get the details.
See:
J Assoc Physicians India 1971 Oct;19(10):741-744
Solanum xanthocarpum (Kantakari) in chronic bronchitis,
bronchial asthma and non-specific unproductive cough (An
experimental and clinical co-relation).
Bector NP, Puri AS

The bad news is that there is evidence that the herb can
cause testiculear lesions in rats, monkeys and dogs.
See:
Int J Androl 1982 Jun;5(3):295-307
Antispermatogenic/antiandrogenic properties of solasodine
(C27H43O2N) obtained from solanum xanthocarpum berries on
the male genital tract of dog (Canis-familiaris). A
histophysiological approach.
Dixit VP, Gupta RS

And:
Indian J Exp Biol 1988 Feb;26(2):95-98
Effects of alcoholic extract of Solanum xanthocarpum seeds
in adult malerats.
Rao MV

And:
Andrologia 1989 Nov;21(6):542-546
Antifertility plant products: testicular cell population
dynamicsfollowing solasodine (C27H43O2N) administration in
rhesus monkey (Macaca mulatta).
Dixit VP, Gupta RS, Gupta S

I hope you appreciate this - I just spent 2-1/2 hours
looking this stuff up.

One thing that really concerns me is how many times evidence
of harmfull fertillity/pregnancy effects came up for these
herbs.

[grog]

But that would take him (and others) out of their comfort zone.
That would also be questioning something that has ?almost? deity
status with him. Regretably those that listen to him may miss out on
benefits that other options may provide.

"Leapin Larry" <leap...@earthlink.net> wrote:

>Colin Campbell wrote:
>>> What database did you search? Does the database only contain
>>> research data on Western medicine, or does it contain any
>>> information on Eastern medicine?
>>

>>My favorite database is a complete listing of articles which
>>have appeared in reputable, peer-reviewed scientific
>>journals. I prefer to see articles that have gone through a
>>review process and meet the methodological and statistical
>>standards for scientific research.
>
>In other words you will not try anything but modern western
>medicine.
>

>That's a shame because ayurvedic medicine may work in cases
>where modern western medicine doesn't.
>
>Ayurveda is a 5000 year old empirical system of medicine.
>Reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journals did not exist
>5000 years ago. Yet ayurvedic medicine works for many people.
>

>>> Have you tried searching for ayurveda on www.amazon.com ?
>>> You will find lots of books on this topic. Perhaps you could

>>> take a look at one of those books.
>>

>>The problem is that there is no form of quality control
>>process for these books. Typically these books are
>>published on the basis of 'what will sell' with no concern
>>at all for accuracy. I am very carefull to select books
>>that contain information that can be checked by reviewing
>>sources and references.
>

>There are many authors with high reputation, such as Deepak
>Chopra. There are many western western doctors (Deepak
>Chopra has an M.D.) that know about ayurveda. If you don't
>have an M.D. yourself perhaps you can read what these M.D.s
>have to say about ayurveda. (For example there is a book on
>ayurveda by Scott Gerson M.D.).
>

>LL

[Colin Campbell]

grog wrote:

> Good question ! No. I wouldn't. . At the time it was the accepted
> mainstream treatment though. Blessed by Science and the medical
> community.

Actually, this is incorrect. Untill the late 1800's
scientific medicine did not exist and medicine was little
more than a compilation of folklore.

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:
>
> Colin Campbell wrote:
> >

> >If I took this attitude then I would be using albuterol
> >4X/day as my only asthma medication.
>

> Out of curiousity -- what other medication are you using?
>
> I started looking into alternatives when several puffs of
> albuterol would not stop me coughing, sometimes at night.
> This had me worried, so I am interested in finding out what
> else is available.

Currently, I am on a lot of medications (Serevent, Accolate,
Areobud-M, and tapering off of a prolonged pred regimen).
My doctor wants to see two months of good control before he
will let me start cutting meds.

My doctor also suspects an underlying problem (emphysema and
airways remodeling are the prime suspects) that caused me to
lose control of my asthma. Once I get health insurance he
intends to put me through a whole batter of expensive
testing (CAT scan of the lungs, more detailed PFTs, and some
type of test to measure the effectivness of gas exchange in
my lungs) so he can determine exactly what is going on.

> This allegation has not been proved. In any case what I read
> at hcrc.org is not reassuring about Chopra though. But
> ayurveda is larger than one person. Don't let Chopra bring
> a bad name to ayurveda.

You were the person who proposed him as an authorative
source.

>
> Also, I would not discredit ayurveda just because it is very
> old. It certainly isn't comparable to arsenic or bleeding.

Maybe and maybe not. Some of the herbs it uses would never
meet US safety standards for medicines.

>
> Did you look at www.niam.com
> The information at this site appears to be more along the
> lines of what you are looking for.

I tried. I get a message that the name does not exist. (ie
the internet name servers never heard of it).

>
> LL

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>If I took this attitude then I would be using albuterol
>4X/day as my only asthma medication.

Out of curiousity -- what other medication are you using?

I started looking into alternatives when several puffs of
albuterol would not stop me coughing, sometimes at night.
This had me worried, so I am interested in finding out what
else is available.

>But discouraging a patient to try an unproven treatment

>modality when there is a conventional treatment that is
>_known_ to be effective, and having that patient die as a
>result - shows us Dr. Chopras priorties are with pushing a
>belief system, not with the welfare of his 'patients.'

This allegation has not been proved. In any case what I read
at hcrc.org is not reassuring about Chopra though. But
ayurveda is larger than one person. Don't let Chopra bring
a bad name to ayurveda.

Also, I would not discredit ayurveda just because it is very

old. It certainly isn't comparable to arsenic or bleeding.

Did you look at www.niam.com

The information at this site appears to be more along the
lines of what you are looking for.

LL

[Chris Owens]

"Leapin Larry" <leap...@earthlink.net> writes:

> >> >The problem with the books is that there is no way to know
> >> >if the information is accurate. If I cannot verify the
> >> >accuracy of the information then how can I rely on it?
> >>

> >> I can understand your position, but it is not always practical.
> >

> >Sure it is, when you are talking about my life and health.
>

> Well, if you have advanced degrees in biology then it may be
> practical for you. But this strategy is not practical for most
> people.

Sure it is. It is called being proactive about one's life, and self-educating
on issues of importance to oneself.

> Verifying all the information myself is not an option for me.

Sure it is. You do it the same way I do . . . by reading research articles.

> >There isn't any other kind. If, empiracally, ayruveda works, then, statistically,
> >you should be able to demonstrate that fact. It's called a clinical trial.
>
> Apparently clinical trials are being conducted. Please check out
> http://www.niam.com/

No results, as yet; as far as I could tell. I will be interested to see the
data when it is obtained.

> >Be my guest; but don't expect me to jump on the bandwagon. I have
> >more concern for my own life and health than to believe ANYBODY
> >without seeking out the source literature.
>
> I wish I had this option.

You do. ANYBODY can read source literature.

> >> >Any claim that any particular treatment modality will treat
> >> >any particular disease is hype and/or an inflated claim
> >> >unless the proponents can point out a double-blinded
> >> >placebo-controled clinical trial that demonstrated
> >> >effectivness.
> >>
> >> Again, your position is understandable -- it is just not
> >> necessarily practical.
> >
> >Whyever not?
>
> Because ayurveda is not yet popular enough in the west for someone
> to put the resources to prove or disprove its effectiveness.

Hello? Earth to Larry: MOST treatment regimens aren't even KNOWN
prior to clinical trials.

> >> Ayurveda has been around long enough and popular (atleast in
> >> India) that if it is dangerous then that fact will be well
> >> known by now.
> >

> >Tell me, how long did they use bleeding as a treatment? That's right,
> >millenia. Now, would you generally consider bleeding an appropriate
> >treatment for fever?
>

> And by now we know bleeding as a method of treatment is dangerous,
> don't we? The same way, we would know by now if ayurveda was
> dangerous.

Not necessarily. We discovered that bleeding was dangerous when we
elucidated the basic mechanisms of inflammation. What are the basic
underlying mechanisms of ayurveda?

> >Further, every photograph of OTHER
> >planets shows them to be globes. So, the accumulated EVIDENCE
> >is persuasive that the earth is round. I am not accepting the word of
> >any single person, but the word of many people, backed by evidence.
> >Quite a difference from what you propose.
>
> I am not knowledgeable enough about ayurveda to tell you what
> evidence is available to support ayurveda.

Then, you should not be defending it.

> But if you go to
> www.amazon.com you can find lots of books on the subject, and
> many of them are written by MDs. If you are interested perhaps

> you can take a look at one of those books.

What I want to see is research articles published in juried scientific journals.
I could write, and have published, a book that claimed ANYTHING, and it
would not prove the accuracy of my assertions.

> >> But how do you know about asthma?
> >

> >ANYONE of normal intelligence, who is willing to spend the time, can
> >self-educate him/herself on ANY subject.
>
> Sure, but enough knowledge to challenge an M.D.?

Hell, yes. MDs know a LITTLE about a wide variety of diseases, and
a LOT about very common ones. If they have a specialty, they will know
a lot about the most common conditions within that specialty. However,
a single individual can easily amass a greater expertise about a single
condition that most MDs.

Chris Owens

[Chris Owens]

"Leapin Larry" <leap...@earthlink.net> writes:
> Colin, here are some of the herbs. I am interested in the
> safety information too, so I would appreciate it if you will
> share whatever information you find.
>
> Adhatoda vasica

Proper name: Justica adhatoda. Antispasmodic

> Boerhaavia diffusa

Diuretic and expectorant

> Hyoscamus niger

Antispasmodic

> Ocimum sanctum

Antispasmodic and antihelminthic

> Sida cordifolia

Not listed in any reference I have

> Solanum xanthocarpum

Antispasmodic

So far, you have listed a group of herbs, all of which have some medicinal
potential. However, the specific anti-bronchospasm activity of none
of them has been tested; asthmatics rarely have intestinal worms as
a side effect of their disease; and diuretics are generally downright dangerous
for asthmatics. So, why shouldn't we go with drugs of known effect
that target the specific health problems of asthmatics?

Chris Owens

[Chris Owens]

hrse...@ix.netcom.com (grog) writes:

> All of this brings up the real serious question:
>
> How many have DIED as a result of accepted Western treatments/ drugs.

Many. But, not as many as would have died of the disease for which the
treatments were prescribed. It's a simple payoff to compute.

>
> Reading the warning labels/pamphlets given with most prescription and
> OTC drugs lets me know they are a long way from perfect.

Sure they are; but, they are better than NOTHING in a life-threatening
condition.

> I am not suggesting a blind acceptance of all forms of alternative
> medicine.

Good.

> I AM suggesting that it be looked at seriously.

And it IS being looked at seriously. The problem is with people who
want us to accept the treatments BEFORE they are investigated.

> Granted some of these eastern/alternative/native
> remedies may sound absurd to a traditional western-oriented mind.

Not necessarily. Most 'accepted' treatments were once experimental.

Chris Owens

[Leapin Larry]

Chris Owens wrote:
>
>You do. ANYBODY can read source literature.
>

Yes, anybody can read it. But can anybody understand it?
Remember, most people can't even set the time on their VCR.
I consider myself intelligent, but I don't have enough
background in biology or chemistry to understand medical
literature. This is the reason I listen to other people
who have advanced degrees in medicine.

>Hello? Earth to Larry: MOST treatment regimens aren't even KNOWN
>prior to clinical trials.
>

>What I want to see is research articles published in juried scientific
>journals.

Yes, I agree it would be nice if someone conducted clinical
trials on ayurvedic medicine and published articles in
scientific journals. But at the moment I cannot point to
such clinical trials or articles. (They may exist but I
haven't researched enough to have come across any.)

What Western medicine is telling me is, "we don't have any
medicine for you, but we don't want you to try their medicine
because they haven't proved the safety or effectiveness of
their medicine to our satisfaction."

If albuterol worked all the time then I wouldn't even be
looking at ayurveda. But since Western medicine doesn't have
all the answers for me I am willing to take a look at what is
popular in the East, even if it hasn't been proved effective
and safe to the satisfaction of Western experts. If millions
of people have been using these medicines for hundreds of
years, and if no modern expert has proved these medicines
harmful, and if many western M.D.s actually endorse this system
of medicine, then it is probably OK enough for me to try.
If I had the resources I would probably have done the clinical
trials myself before using these medicines, but I don't.

LL

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell (co...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> > But ayurveda is larger than one person. Don't let Chopra bring
> > a bad name to ayurveda.
>

> You were the person who proposed him as an authorative
> source.

I said Chopra, among others, have written about Ayurveda. However
I have now read that Chopra has not used his medical background to
do scientific research on ayurveda. There are other authors. Try
Dr. Scott Gerson M.D.

> Maybe and maybe not. Some of the herbs it uses would never
> meet US safety standards for medicines.

What makes you an expert on this? Please supply information on your
educational background and the research you have conducted. Or else,
if a qualified person has made this opinion then please quote them.
I am disinclined to accept the opinion of some quack like you.

> > Did you look at www.niam.com
> > The information at this site appears to be more along the
> > lines of what you are looking for.

> I tried. I get a message that the name does not exist. (ie

> the internet name servers never heard of it).

Get a better Internet connection.

LL

[Leapin Larry]

Chris Owens (cao...@redsuspenders.com) wrote:
> So far, you have listed a group of herbs, all of which have some medicinal
> potential. However, the specific anti-bronchospasm activity of none
> of them has been tested; asthmatics rarely have intestinal worms as
> a side effect of their disease; and diuretics are generally downright
> dangerous for asthmatics.

All of the herbs I listed are used for treating asthma.

Also, I did not list the herbs so that you can self-medicate. I am
not qualified to answer your concerns about side-effects. Consult a
qualified ayurvedic physician such as Scott Gerson M.D.

> So, why shouldn't we go with drugs of known
> effect that target the specific health problems of asthmatics?

If Western medicines worked well enough for me I never would have
looked in to ayurveda.

LL

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> What makes you an expert on this? Please supply information on your
> educational background and the research you have conducted. Or else,
> if a qualified person has made this opinion then please quote them.
> I am disinclined to accept the opinion of some quack like you.

The fact that I have actually taken the time to learn
something about how medicines are developed in the US? Let
me give you a hint - the fact that these herbs are suspected
teratogens means that they will never become pharmuciticals
unless they have been demonstrated to be the _only_
effective treatment for a particular disease.

I spent 2-1/2 hours yesterday doing research (that you
should have done yourself) for you. I am not willing to do
any more work for you. Go look this up for yourself.

> > I tried. I get a message that the name does not exist. (ie
> > the internet name servers never heard of it).
>
> Get a better Internet connection.

In case you are intrested, the problem is that there was no
name server that recognised the name. (This is not a
connection problem - this is a name service problem).

[Chris Owens]

"Leapin Larry" <leap...@earthlink.net> writes:

> >You do. ANYBODY can read source literature.
> >
>
> Yes, anybody can read it. But can anybody understand it?

Of course they can. If they don't know the meaning of the terms, then
they need to read some basic texts until they do.

> Remember, most people can't even set the time on their VCR.

Which is a technical skill, not a comprehension one.

> I consider myself intelligent, but I don't have enough
> background in biology or chemistry to understand medical
> literature.

There is absolutely no reason why you can't obtain the background.

> >Hello? Earth to Larry: MOST treatment regimens aren't even KNOWN
> >prior to clinical trials.
> >
> >What I want to see is research articles published in juried scientific
> >journals.
>
>
> Yes, I agree it would be nice if someone conducted clinical
> trials on ayurvedic medicine and published articles in
> scientific journals. But at the moment I cannot point to
> such clinical trials or articles. (They may exist but I
> haven't researched enough to have come across any.)
>
> What Western medicine is telling me is, "we don't have any
> medicine for you, but we don't want you to try their medicine
> because they haven't proved the safety or effectiveness of
> their medicine to our satisfaction."
>
> If albuterol worked all the time then I wouldn't even be
> looking at ayurveda.

Albuterol is hardly the be-all and end-all of the asthma pharmacopeia.
It took more than two years of constant work with my doctor to get
my asthma under control when I broke remission as an adult. I tried
many, many drug and lifestyle regimens before I found one that worked.
If all you have tried is albuterol, you haven't even scratched the surface.

Chris Owens

[Denis Fuller]

--

Colin Campbell wrote in message <3543FD17...@pacbell.net>...

>Leapin Larry wrote:
>>
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>> >

>> Did you look at www.niam.com
>> The information at this site appears to be more along the
>> lines of what you are looking for.
>

>I tried. I get a message that the name does not exist. (ie
>the internet name servers never heard of it).

copied from www.niam.com

Disclaimer:All information provided in this website is provided for
historical and educational purposes only; statements contained here
are reported in an effort to preserve traditional cultural lore and
information. Nothing here should be construed as an attempt to
diagnose, prescribe, or recommend in any manner a treatment for any
health ailment or condition. Consult your own physician regarding the
treatment of any medical condition; this information is not a
repalcement for a thorough consultation and examination from a
licensed health professional. People should not try to medicate
themselves or others with any of the plants referred to here without
the guidance of an individual fully trained in Ayurveda and thoroughly
familiar with both the plants and the individual’s medical status.
Some of the plants listed are poisonous;some can elicit severe
allergic reactions if used inappropriately.Do not attempt to
self-treat based on information in this website.

need I say any more!

denis

my yahoo.com address is a spam trap! my real email address is
myname*AT*Charlie*Hotel*Foxtrot*DOT*softnet*DOT*co*DOT*uk
(remember the phonetic alphabet !)
8¬)

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>The fact that I have actually taken the time to learn
>something about how medicines are developed in the US? Let
>me give you a hint - the fact that these herbs are suspected
>teratogens means that they will never become pharmuciticals
>unless they have been demonstrated to be the _only_
>effective treatment for a particular disease.

I am no expert on these matters. But I looked up "teratogen" on
Altavista and I came across this:
http://crystal.biol.csufresno.edu:8080/projects/42.html
Apparently aspirin is a teratogen. Prescription drugs are
teratogens. What does all this mean? I don't have the right
background and training to give an authoritative answer.
You don't either, as far as I can tell, but that isn't
stopping you from making authoritative assertions that
"some of the herbs it uses would never meet US safety
standards for medicines." Why not leave it to the people
who have the appropriate education and training? I think you
are doing a disservice by spreading this misinformation.

>I spent 2-1/2 hours yesterday doing research (that you
>should have done yourself) for you. I am not willing to do
>any more work for you. Go look this up for yourself.

Please don't think that your effort is not appreciated. I
have printed out a copy of your post and plan to ask doctors
if I should be concerned about the safety of those herbs.
I am sure other people appreciate your service too. The only
problem I have is when you make authoritative conclusions
from the data you found, that you are not qualified to make.
That's a disservice.

You have said previously that you are open minded but it
doesn't look that way to me. You seem highly prejudiced
against any unconventional treatment.

Did you know that the FDA itself is researching some
ayurvedic treatments?

Here is an excerpt from an FDA web page:

Researchers with FDA's Laboratory of Molecular
Pharmacology are studying an extract of Coleus forskohlii.
A plant native to India and Nepal, the roots of Coleus
forskohlii have been used for centuries, as part of a
traditional Hindu system of medicine known as ayurveda,
to treat skin infections and to rid the body of parasitic
worms.
The extract from those roots, forskolin, is a
potential agent for monitoring the activity of many
enzymes in the human body, and may some day be used to
make tumors more susceptible to the actions of
anti-cancer drugs.

There you go! Respect for Ayurveda from the FDA itself!

Indian sages used this herb 5000 years ago. Some day the FDA
will catch up with the ancient sages and use these herbs to
treat tumors.

LL

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> I am no expert on these matters. But I looked up "teratogen" on
> Altavista and I came across this:
> http://crystal.biol.csufresno.edu:8080/projects/42.html
> Apparently aspirin is a teratogen.

In what quuantities and under what conditions?

Prescription drugs are
> teratogens. What does all this mean? I don't have the right
> background and training to give an authoritative answer.
> You don't either, as far as I can tell, but that isn't
> stopping you from making authoritative assertions that
> "some of the herbs it uses would never meet US safety
> standards for medicines." Why not leave it to the people
> who have the appropriate education and training? I think you
> are doing a disservice by spreading this misinformation.

Because if I did then the quacks would be able to suppress
this information.

> The extract from those roots, forskolin, is a
> potential agent for monitoring the activity of many
> enzymes in the human body, and may some day be used to
> make tumors more susceptible to the actions of
> anti-cancer drugs.
>
> There you go! Respect for Ayurveda from the FDA itself!

Actually this is nothing more that real scientific
research. Also note that they are not testing the herb,
they are testing one chemical found in the herb. BTW, the
odds against any particular drug making it through the
complete process and being certified as "A safe and
effective treatment for . . ." are oughly 99 to 1 against.
Don't get to optimistic about any particular drug that is in
the early stages of development.

[Shailami]

>
>So far, you have listed a group of herbs, all of which have some medicinal
>potential. However, the specific anti-bronchospasm activity of none
>of them has been tested; asthmatics rarely have intestinal worms as
>a side effect of their disease; and diuretics are generally downright
>dangerous

>for asthmatics. So, why shouldn't we go with drugs of known effect

>that target the specific health problems of asthmatics?
>

>Chris Owens
></PRE></HTML>

The New England Journal of Medicine's recent article with the statistics of
numbers of people who die in hospitals from medication (not from wrongly
prescribed medication, not from overdoses of medication)and those that are made
sicker should be of interest to you. Also of interest should be the news that
few doctors report side-effects of drugs to the FDA.
Funny that with all the talk about the so-called "safety" of drugs, no
one here seems to be mentioning this. It was in all the newspapers over the
weekend. If I find time I will excerpt it.

Ayurvedic medicine has been tested over 5000 years. Your drugs were tested for
two. However you will be completing the testing for the drug company.

And yes, many people with asthma have parasites. And Boswellin should be added
to the list as that is anti-inflammatory.

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell wrote:
>> I am no expert on these matters. But I looked up "teratogen" on
>> Altavista and I came across this:
>> http://crystal.biol.csufresno.edu:8080/projects/42.html
>> Apparently aspirin is a teratogen.
>
>In what quuantities and under what conditions?

Exactly. Why didn't you ask the same question about the ayurvedic
herbs? This is the reason I think you are highly prejudiced.

LL

[Colin Campbell]

Shailami wrote:

> The New England Journal of Medicine's recent article with the statistics of
> numbers of people who die in hospitals from medication (not from wrongly
> prescribed medication, not from overdoses of medication)and those that are made
> sicker should be of interest to you. Also of interest should be the news that
> few doctors report side-effects of drugs to the FDA.
> Funny that with all the talk about the so-called "safety" of drugs, no
> one here seems to be mentioning this. It was in all the newspapers over the
> weekend. If I find time I will excerpt it.

Actually this is a no-brainer. Anybody who has been on
prednisolone knows that the dangers of a drug are
porportional to its effects. Doctors have the job of
determining whether the risk is greater from the drug or
from the disease. What you need to consider is whether
pharmicuticals save significantly more people than they
harm.

>
> Ayurvedic medicine has been tested over 5000 years. Your drugs were tested for
> two. However you will be completing the testing for the drug company.

Tested by who and how? I notice that it wasn't untill
certian ayurvedic herbs were tested that it became apparent
that they may cause birth-defects. For 5000 pyears people
used them, without ever checking for any potential dangers.
It wasn't untill a scientist checked before this became
apparent.

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> >In what quuantities and under what conditions?
>
> Exactly. Why didn't you ask the same question about the ayurvedic
> herbs? This is the reason I think you are highly prejudiced.

If you had looked up the citation I supplied (why did you
think I gave you the necessary information to look thae
article up yourself?). You wouldn't have to ask this
question.

[Jim Wheelock]

I have to chime in, although I haven't read al the posts.

To think that any patient has one up on a physician is just foolish.
There is no comparison to the education one recieves through medical
school and what one feels they 'know' from their own research,
particularly from the internet. I doubt one could hold an intelligent
debate with most doctors. At least, in tems of practical medicine.

While not a fan of 'alternative' treatments myself, there certainly
seems to be a place for them. Scientific scrutiny? You can't mean the
FDA...? Remember the serotonin debacle? Phen phen? Give me a break.
These are the same people that determined Mexican food could cause
weight gain. Isn't morphine and curare still used, today?

Point is, there are agendas. Not to say that there isn't real concern
for disease sufferers, but, just like trial lawyers...

It's naive to think we live in a perfectly, contorlled and evaluated
world. I trust modern medicine. But, cannot bring myself to dismiss
ideas that challenge even the most structured. Isn't that what an open
mind is really all about?

[ladeeda]

"Keep an open mind" is in response to ALL of your negative messages in this
newsgroup. If I had a dime for every time you snuffed someone out because
there was not enough scientific proof, I'd be a rich woman.

I am hardly a pushover for anything a salesman has to sell, but have found
great success in homeopathic and alternative means for health. I don't
really care if you believe in it, but other people who come to this
newsgroup might not be aware that there are alternatives to being highly
medicated.

I hope the original writer continues searching for something that may just
replace all the medications we are constantly discussing and I hope that
you realize that "a positive attitude" can work miracles.

Good luck -

[Jim Wheelock]

Chiming in, again...

Self educating... I'm sure the doctors love this.

How pleasing it must be to know that you know better than the trained
and educated physicians.

[Jim Wheelock]

And more to the point...

Particularly concerning the internet... it is hardly up to date.
Questioning a physician's current stand and trying to find things
pertainling to current research is virtually impossible. At least, in
any quantity.

Albuterol is still suggested as a maintenance medication. Adrenalin
injections are still used in ER. CFC's are still used here, whereas dry
powder inhalers are used in the UK. Primatine mist is sold OTC.

I trust the medical community but understand that they make mistakes. I
also don't believe th FDA works completely in our interests. Want to
know how much Xanax is prescribed every year for anxiety? What about the
AIDS medications? Read the warning label on Accolate?

I understand that any disease treatment is about weighing the good
against the bad... relief vs side effects. But, for as little is written
about the scientific data behind alternative measures, I have read just
as little regarding the death of indviduals using such. The bigger
problem is people not recieving any treatment, at all.

[Chris Owens]

shai...@aol.com (Shailami) writes: > >
> >So far, you have listed a group of herbs, all of which have some medicinal
> >potential. However, the specific anti-bronchospasm activity of none
> >of them has been tested; asthmatics rarely have intestinal worms as
> >a side effect of their disease; and diuretics are generally downright
> >dangerous
> >for asthmatics. So, why shouldn't we go with drugs of known effect
> >that target the specific health problems of asthmatics?
> >

> The New England Journal of Medicine's recent article with the statistics of
> numbers of people who die in hospitals from medication (not from wrongly
> prescribed medication, not from overdoses of medication)and those that are made
> sicker should be of interest to you.

Yes, it was. Just goes to show that sick people sometimes have negative
reactions to meds, just like well people. Alas, BECAUSE they are sick,
the symptoms of the negative reaction are often overlooked, or mis-ascribed
to whatever made them sick in the first place.

> Also of interest should be the news that
> few doctors report side-effects of drugs to the FDA.

Odd, mine does.

> Funny that with all the talk about the so-called "safety" of drugs, no
> one here seems to be mentioning this.

Maybe because WE have the sort of doctors who DO report side-effects.

> Ayurvedic medicine has been tested over 5000 years.

Whoopdedoo. Most herb-based medical systems have a long history.
This does not constitute controlled, double-blinded testing, however.

> Your drugs were tested for
> two.

Well, no, actually; the medications I take are all more than ten years
past release date. And, they are ones that have been widely prescribed,
so they have quite a safety history, under controlled conditions.

> However you will be completing the testing for the drug company.

No, I don't take ANY drug that is in 'gamma' testing; i.e., I don't take
any drug until it has been released for at least 3 years.

> And yes, many people with asthma have parasites.

Which do not contribute to their asthma, nor are caused by their asthma.

Chris Owens

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell (co...@pacbell.net) wrote:

> > >In what quantities and under what conditions?

You are the one that said some of these herbs are teratogens
without saying in what quantities and under what conditions.
If you don't supply that additional bit of information you can
say aspirin is a teratogen too. In fact, most medicines are,
apparently.

BTW, you did provide the names of the authors of the papers
etc. but I don't have access to all those papers. I don't have
access to a library where they have all those papers either,
especially in a computer searchable form. How did you do your
search?

LL

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell (co...@pacbell.net) wrote:

> Tested by who and how? I notice that it wasn't until

> certian ayurvedic herbs were tested that it became apparent
> that they may cause birth-defects.

In what quantities and under what conditions?

How do you know this information wasn't known to ayurvedic
physicians before then?

Do you know what quantities of the herbs were being used, and
under what conditions?

> For 5000 pyears people
> used them, without ever checking for any potential dangers.
> It wasn't untill a scientist checked before this became
> apparent.

Stop spreading misinformation. You are talking about something
you know nothing about.

LL

[Colin Campbell]

ladeeda wrote:
>
> "Keep an open mind" is in response to ALL of your negative messages in this
> newsgroup. If I had a dime for every time you snuffed someone out because
> there was not enough scientific proof, I'd be a rich woman.

Can you define what you mean by "keep an open mind"? Do you
mean I should _not_ research out the underlying science? Do
you mean I should _not_ check to see if there is any real
evidence of safety and effectivness?

> I am hardly a pushover for anything a salesman has to sell, but have found
> great success in homeopathic and alternative means for health. I don't
> really care if you believe in it, but other people who come to this
> newsgroup might not be aware that there are alternatives to being highly
> medicated.

The problem is that the people in the newsgroup need to know
_all_ the facts about any particular 'alternative'
treatment. How else can they know of the hazards inherrent
in things such as ozone generators, and herbal 'remedies'?

Recently we had an asthmatic in this newsgroup who had a
"nutritionist" prescribe Pollen Products for her allergies.
Shouldn't somebody be warning of the dangers?

>
> I hope the original writer continues searching for something that may just
> replace all the medications we are constantly discussing and I hope that
> you realize that "a positive attitude" can work miracles.

And the same 'positive' attitude can cause you to lie to
yourself. People with a chronic disease such as asthma need
a realistic attitude.
>
> Good luck -

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> You are the one that said some of these herbs are teratogens
> without saying in what quantities and under what conditions.
> If you don't supply that additional bit of information you can
> say aspirin is a teratogen too. In fact, most medicines are,
> apparently.
>
> BTW, you did provide the names of the authors of the papers
> etc. but I don't have access to all those papers. I don't have
> access to a library where they have all those papers either,
> especially in a computer searchable form. How did you do your
> search?

I went to a Medline server on the internet. The address is:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/

All of this information is available - if you are willing to
spend the time to look.

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> In what quantities and under what conditions?
>
> How do you know this information wasn't known to ayurvedic
> physicians before then?
>
> Do you know what quantities of the herbs were being used, and
> under what conditions?

Why don't you simply look up the source? I spend over two
hours providing you with the information on Sunday, you can
at least do _some_ of the work yourself.

>
> > For 5000 pyears people
> > used them, without ever checking for any potential dangers.
> > It wasn't untill a scientist checked before this became
> > apparent.
>
> Stop spreading misinformation. You are talking about something
> you know nothing about.

If this is misinformation then please show evidence that any
form of methodocical testing was performed at all during
these 5,000 years.
>
> LL

[ladeeda]

By "keep an open mind" I mean that all of your discouraging may do equal
harm than good. Why not explain the possible cautions, and encourage
people to continue looking for alternative remedies with their eyes open?
I realize it's difficult for you to wrap your head around it, but it is
possible that there are alternatives to the Western medicine philosophy of
treating only the symptoms. You never know. When, and if, a cure for
asthma is found, you can be sure that people will be cautious. What's the
point of not encouraging them to continue to look for possible cures?

Find me a doctor that agrees with you that it's better not to have a
positive attitude. I'll be waiting for that reply!! I'm not suggesting
that people turn a blind eye, but I do think that people should be open to
ALL possible solutions to the problem. If they do their homework they'll
find the hazards. I'm not suggesting you don't advise them of what the
hazards might be, but whenever anybody mentions ANY alternative type of
approach - you immediately shoot them down. I wonder if you can be
"open-minded" enough to hear what I'm saying?

[Colin Campbell]

ladeeda wrote:
>
> By "keep an open mind" I mean that all of your discouraging may do equal
> harm than good. Why not explain the possible cautions, and encourage
> people to continue looking for alternative remedies with their eyes open?

Because if I took that approach, the promoters of these
'remedies' would have a field day. This is what they want.
They want thier customers to be taken in by the sales pitch.

Another problem with this approach is it allows the
promoters of 'alternative' medicine to get away with
business as usual. We _need_ them to test thier products
for safety, we need them to actually understand asthma
rather than make something up in order to seel a product.

> I realize it's difficult for you to wrap your head around it, but it is
> possible that there are alternatives to the Western medicine philosophy of
> treating only the symptoms. You never know. When, and if, a cure for
> asthma is found, you can be sure that people will be cautious. What's the
> point of not encouraging them to continue to look for possible cures?

Because the alt. med. people are not going to find a cure.
If this were possible then it would have been discovered,
tested and placed into a real doctors toolkit a long time
ago.

The claim that scientific medicine only treats symptoms is
disproven by the current doctrine in asthma treatment.
Since current doctring is to _prevent_ symptoms in the first
place, you have to admit that science has moved beyond the
treatment of symptoms in asthma.

Of course, claiming that asthma is caused by something that
cannot be proven to exist (either directly or indirectly)
and that a particular drug (yes, all herbs are drugs) or
treatment will correct that nebulous 'something', is a
common claim in the healthfraud industry.

>
> Find me a doctor that agrees with you that it's better not to have a
> positive attitude. I'll be waiting for that reply!! I'm not suggesting
> that people turn a blind eye, but I do think that people should be open to
> ALL possible solutions to the problem. If they do their homework they'll
> find the hazards.

What level of 'homework' do you recommend? The level of
checking you did or the level of checking I did?

I'm not suggesting you don't advise them of what the
> hazards might be, but whenever anybody mentions ANY alternative type of
> approach - you immediately shoot them down. I wonder if you can be
> "open-minded" enough to hear what I'm saying?

I am 'open-minded' I have a set of objective standard which
I apply all methods of asthma treatment. You will notice
that I have stated that I am unconvinced that allergy shots
are effective - and these are a mainstream medical
procedure.

Not "any". There are alternative approaches to asthma
treatment that do have a place in the treatment of asthma,
of course since these 'alternatives' have been demonstrated
to actually work they are now part of the asthma doctor's
toolkit.

The problem is when somebody is promoting a treatment that
is dangerous (such as the Alpine salesmen) or simply a
rip-off (such as the vitamin salesmen).

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell (co...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> I went to a Medline server on the internet. The address is:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/

> All of this information is available - if you are willing to
> spend the time to look.

Thank you Colin, for supplying this info. This site appears to have
quite a few articles on ayurveda. Unfortunately I was unable to read
because this site appears to require some sort of library membership.

LL

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell (co...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> Why don't you simply look up the source? I spend over two
> hours providing you with the information on Sunday, you can
> at least do _some_ of the work yourself.

You missed the point.

When I said Aspirin is a teratogen you asked me in what quantities
and under what conditions. Your question is a valid one. If I say
something is a teratogen then I must say in what quantities and
under what conditions or my statement doesn't have all the
information to be valid.

Yet, after demanding that information from me (which you could have
looked up yourself) you are making statements that ayurvedic herbs
are teratogens, without saying in what quantities and under what
conditions.

Do you see the irony?

> > > For 5000 years people

> > > used them, without ever checking for any potential dangers.

> > > It wasn't until a scientist checked before this became

> > > apparent.
> >
> > Stop spreading misinformation. You are talking about something
> > you know nothing about.

> If this is misinformation then please show evidence that any
> form of methodocical testing was performed at all during
> these 5,000 years.

Colin, you said that it wasn't until a scientist checked that
potential dangers became apparent. You are claiming that ayurvedic
physicians were not aware of the side effects. Please tell me
how you know this.

Also, do you know in what quantities and under what conditions these
herbs were prescribed?

It looks to me that your prejudice against unconventional medicine
is so strong that you are out to "win at any cost", even spreading
misinformation.

LL

[ladeeda]

> > By "keep an open mind" I mean that all of your discouraging may do
equal
> > harm than good. Why not explain the possible cautions, and encourage
> > people to continue looking for alternative remedies with their eyes
open?
>
> Because if I took that approach, the promoters of these
> 'remedies' would have a field day. This is what they want.
> They want thier customers to be taken in by the sales pitch.

With all due respect, you sound a little self important and paranoid at the
same time. Do you really think that if you were more encouraging towards
peoples ideas that "the promoters would have a field day"? YIKES

> Another problem with this approach is it allows the
> promoters of 'alternative' medicine to get away with
> business as usual. We _need_ them to test thier products
> for safety, we need them to actually understand asthma
> rather than make something up in order to seel a product.

You make it sound like all prompters of alternative medicine are trying to
get away with something. Why can't they just be offering another approach
without any ulterior motives? Again, this sounds a little paranoid.

> > I realize it's difficult for you to wrap your head around it, but it is
> > possible that there are alternatives to the Western medicine philosophy
of
> > treating only the symptoms. You never know. When, and if, a cure for
> > asthma is found, you can be sure that people will be cautious. What's
the
> > point of not encouraging them to continue to look for possible cures?
>
> Because the alt. med. people are not going to find a cure.
> If this were possible then it would have been discovered,
> tested and placed into a real doctors toolkit a long time
> ago.

Now, there's that positive attitude I was looking for (sarcastically said).
I'm sure the skeptics said the same thing before penicillin or the vaccine
for polio was found.

[HPrill]

Colin Cambell wrote:
>> Another problem with this approach is it allows the
>> promoters of 'alternative' medicine to get away with
>> business as usual. We _need_ them to test thier products
>> for safety, we need them to actually understand asthma
>> rather than make something up in order to seel a product.
>

and "ladeeda" responded:

>You make it sound like all prompters of alternative medicine are trying to
>get away with something. Why can't they just be offering another approach
>without any ulterior motives? Again, this sounds a little paranoid.

Colin, have you noted how the folks pushing the alternative approaches almost
never respond directly to your statement that their approaches should be tested
for safety and effectiveness? I guess their mistrust of Western science and
medicine is so profound that they would rather rely on anecdotal evidence from
a few laymen (usually total strangers) and claims made by salesmen. Oh yes,
and the fact that the particular panacea has been used by "sages" in some
distant land for "centuries." I admire your willingness to keep on responding
to the people making these claims. You are performing a real public service.
HP

[Chris Owens]

"Leapin Larry" <leap...@earthlink.net> writes:

> > If you had looked up the citation I supplied (why did you
> > think I gave you the necessary information to look thae
> > article up yourself?). You wouldn't have to ask this
> > question.
>

> You are the one that said some of these herbs are teratogens

> without saying in what quantities and under what conditions.

> If you don't supply that additional bit of information you can
> say aspirin is a teratogen too. In fact, most medicines are,
> apparently.
>
> BTW, you did provide the names of the authors of the papers
> etc. but I don't have access to all those papers. I don't have
> access to a library where they have all those papers either,
> especially in a computer searchable form. How did you do your
> search?

Go to www.nlm.nih.gov, and you have access to the biggest database
of scientific literature ever published. Accessible right from your computer,
and Grateful Med makes searching VERY easy.

Chris Owens
>
> LL
>
>
>

[CBI]

I've been to the far east and spent time working in hospitals in India. They
do not have a system of health to which I would aspire. The fact that health
practices have persisted while no effective alternatives were available is
not evidence of their efficacy, just the desperation of sick people.

In the US herbals can't be patented and so our drug companies don't sponsor
large trials. In Europe this is not the case. Herbals can be patented. There
is active research coming out of Europe. Commission E in Germany acts
similar to the American FDA and evaluates them.

You can't blame the lack of proven efficacy on lack of drug company interest
as this is only a problem in the US. If there is no evidence you must
consider that possibly this is because there are no beneficial effects.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.

Leapin Larry wrote in message <6i24k8$d...@bolivia.earthlink.net>...

>Chris Owens wrote:
>>
>>You do. ANYBODY can read source literature.
>>
>
>Yes, anybody can read it. But can anybody understand it?

>Remember, most people can't even set the time on their VCR.

>I consider myself intelligent, but I don't have enough
>background in biology or chemistry to understand medical

>literature. This is the reason I listen to other people
>who have advanced degrees in medicine.

>
>>Hello? Earth to Larry: MOST treatment regimens aren't even KNOWN
>>prior to clinical trials.
>>
>>What I want to see is research articles published in juried scientific
>>journals.
>
>
>Yes, I agree it would be nice if someone conducted clinical
>trials on ayurvedic medicine and published articles in
>scientific journals. But at the moment I cannot point to
>such clinical trials or articles. (They may exist but I
>haven't researched enough to have come across any.)
>
>What Western medicine is telling me is, "we don't have any
>medicine for you, but we don't want you to try their medicine
>because they haven't proved the safety or effectiveness of
>their medicine to our satisfaction."
>
>If albuterol worked all the time then I wouldn't even be

>looking at ayurveda. But since Western medicine doesn't have
>all the answers for me I am willing to take a look at what is
>popular in the East, even if it hasn't been proved effective
>and safe to the satisfaction of Western experts. If millions
>of people have been using these medicines for hundreds of
>years, and if no modern expert has proved these medicines
>harmful, and if many western M.D.s actually endorse this system
>of medicine, then it is probably OK enough for me to try.
>If I had the resources I would probably have done the clinical
>trials myself before using these medicines, but I don't.
>
>LL
>
>
>

[CBI]

The incidence of birth defects is about 2-3%. There are many different birth
defects so you don't have to be a math whiz to figure out that most
individual defects occur at a frequency of one in several thousands of
births. Anecdotal reports and observations will not detect 10 fold, hundred
fold, sometimes even thousand fold elevations in risk. These can only be
found through large studies and monitoring. This type of information is
simply not available for the vast majority of alternative medicines. Even if
it has been used "safely" for generations in the general population I still
would advise against use of herbal remedies during pregnancy.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.

Unc wrote in message <35498D2B...@juno.com>...

>Leapin Larry wrote:
>>
>> Colin Campbell wrote:
>> >
>> >The fact that I have actually taken the time to learn
>> >something about how medicines are developed in the US? Let
>> >me give you a hint - the fact that these herbs are suspected
>> >teratogens means that they will never become pharmuciticals
>> >unless they have been demonstrated to be the _only_
>> >effective treatment for a particular disease.
>>

>> I am no expert on these matters. But I looked up "teratogen" on
>> Altavista and I came across this:
>> http://crystal.biol.csufresno.edu:8080/projects/42.html
>> Apparently aspirin is a teratogen.
>

>Indeed it is. Consumption of as little as two aspirin daily
>during the second trimester can cause an increase of 8 fold
>in birth defects, especially neurological ones. That
>knowledge is why doctors strongly recommend against
>consumption of aspirin or other NSAIDS during pregnancy.
>The knowledge comes from scientific approaches which are
>rarely applied to folk medicines. Because of 'western
>science' we know NOT to take aspirin when pregnant -- what
>do we know about the herbs that haven't been tested?
>
>THe scientific community has nothing against alternative
>rememdies. As you yourself pointed out, when the anecdotal
>evidence reaches a compelling level, they are tested by
>standard procedures. For example, scientific research has
>confirmed that garlic *IS* useful in heart disease in that
>oils in garlic have the same anti-platelet effect that
>aspirin does .. i.e. blockade of synthesis of thromboxane -
>a biohemical that casues platelets to aggregate. There are
>plant oils (esculetin comes to mind) that do the same thing
>Zyflo does - block the enzyme that produces Leukotrienes.
>The problem is what is a 'standard' dose of garlic or plant
>oils?
>
>Yep - there are sure to be valid folk remedies that modern
>science hasnt yet verified. The problem is - how do you know
>which ones work and which ones dont? One suggestion - the
>advice of someone profiting from you using a remedy is not
>the best source of information. And NO - that doesn't
>describe your Doc -- he actually makes less off you when the
>drugs he prescribes work: fewer office visits.

[CBI]

I forgot to mention that many of the "conventional" asthma medicines have
been monitored and are safe in pregnancy. The pills such as Accolate, Zyflo,
and Singulair are notable exceptions and should not be used during

[CBI]

When looking at whether or not a drug "caused" a death and if it is
"harmful" the correct comparison is to what would have happened if it had
not been given at all. Yes drugs cause deaths, they also prevent them.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.

Colin Campbell wrote in message <354692D6...@pacbell.net>...

>Shailami wrote:
>
>> The New England Journal of Medicine's recent article with the statistics
of
>> numbers of people who die in hospitals from medication (not from wrongly
>> prescribed medication, not from overdoses of medication)and those that
are made

>> sicker should be of interest to you. Also of interest should be the news

that
>> few doctors report side-effects of drugs to the FDA.

>> Funny that with all the talk about the so-called "safety" of drugs, no

>> one here seems to be mentioning this. It was in all the newspapers over
the
>> weekend. If I find time I will excerpt it.
>
>Actually this is a no-brainer. Anybody who has been on
>prednisolone knows that the dangers of a drug are
>porportional to its effects. Doctors have the job of
>determining whether the risk is greater from the drug or
>from the disease. What you need to consider is whether
>pharmicuticals save significantly more people than they
>harm.
>
>
>>

>> Ayurvedic medicine has been tested over 5000 years. Your drugs were
tested for
>> two. However you will be completing the testing for the drug company.
>
>Tested by who and how? I notice that it wasn't untill

>certian ayurvedic herbs were tested that it became apparent

>that they may cause birth-defects. For 5000 pyears people

>used them, without ever checking for any potential dangers.

>It wasn't untill a scientist checked before this became
>apparent.

[CBI]

The pot is calling the kettle black. Western medicine strives to identify
the cause of disease and treat it. We treat the symptoms as a supplement to
treating the disease. These "you only treat the symptom, not the patient"
statements are ignorant, inflammatory, and misleading.

Proponents of western medicine do not claim that no alternative therapies
work. We merely ask that they should have the same evidence of safety and
efficacy as "conventional drugs" before we use them. I don't prescribe a
compound made by a pharmaceutical company until it has proven its worth. I
see no reason to do so with an herb.

You are the one with the closed mind. I can accept some alternative
therapies. I look forward to adding more of them to my armamentarium as we
learn more about them. Most doctors feel the same way. Why do you continue
to maintain erroneous beliefs about western medicine ?

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.

ladeeda wrote in message <01bd73f1$66ed9240$35f785ce@default>...

>By "keep an open mind" I mean that all of your discouraging may do equal
>harm than good. Why not explain the possible cautions, and encourage
>people to continue looking for alternative remedies with their eyes open?

>I realize it's difficult for you to wrap your head around it, but it is
>possible that there are alternatives to the Western medicine philosophy of
>treating only the symptoms. You never know. When, and if, a cure for
>asthma is found, you can be sure that people will be cautious. What's the
>point of not encouraging them to continue to look for possible cures?
>

>Find me a doctor that agrees with you that it's better not to have a
>positive attitude. I'll be waiting for that reply!! I'm not suggesting
>that people turn a blind eye, but I do think that people should be open to
>ALL possible solutions to the problem. If they do their homework they'll

>find the hazards. I'm not suggesting you don't advise them of what the

[CBI]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

You make it sound like all prompters of alternative medicine are trying to
get away with something. Why can't they just be offering another approach
without any ulterior motives?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

If you want to "get the word out" you do research and disseminate the
results in order to convince the lay and professional community that the
therapy works. If you want to make a buck you write a book and appear on
Opra.

My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman. Listen to
the people who aren't selling anything.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.

ladeeda wrote in message <01bd745b$e9406780$30f785ce@default>...

>> > By "keep an open mind" I mean that all of your discouraging may do
>equal
>> > harm than good. Why not explain the possible cautions, and encourage
>> > people to continue looking for alternative remedies with their eyes
>open?
>>

>> Because if I took that approach, the promoters of these
>> 'remedies' would have a field day. This is what they want.
>> They want thier customers to be taken in by the sales pitch.
>
>With all due respect, you sound a little self important and paranoid at the
>same time. Do you really think that if you were more encouraging towards
>peoples ideas that "the promoters would have a field day"? YIKES
>

>> Another problem with this approach is it allows the
>> promoters of 'alternative' medicine to get away with
>> business as usual. We _need_ them to test thier products
>> for safety, we need them to actually understand asthma
>> rather than make something up in order to seel a product.
>

>You make it sound like all prompters of alternative medicine are trying to
>get away with something. Why can't they just be offering another approach
>without any ulterior motives? Again, this sounds a little paranoid.
>

>> > I realize it's difficult for you to wrap your head around it, but it is
>> > possible that there are alternatives to the Western medicine philosophy
>of
>> > treating only the symptoms. You never know. When, and if, a cure for
>> > asthma is found, you can be sure that people will be cautious. What's
>the
>> > point of not encouraging them to continue to look for possible cures?
>>

[lucian X]

CBI <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>You make it sound like all prompters of alternative medicine are trying to
>get away with something. Why can't they just be offering another approach
>without any ulterior motives?
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[snip]

>My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman. Listen to
>the people who aren't selling anything.

...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?

.lx
--
[ lucian X is TM and (c) 1978 God all rights reserved patent pending ]
[ http://www.madison-web.com/lxl/index.html . electronic soundscapes ]
[ http://www.madison-web.com/lxl/lucian/index.html . a personal site ]

[loki]

A friend of mine who has been a practicing herbalist in England for over
40 years would also advise *against* the use of herbal remedies during
pregnancy. I do as well.

If you believe herbs work and that they are effective then you have to
also understand that they can harm as well as help. Folks seem to
forget that.

Loki

[loki]

lucian X wrote:

> CBI <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >You make it sound like all prompters of alternative medicine are trying to
> >get away with something. Why can't they just be offering another approach
> >without any ulterior motives?
> >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> [snip]
> >My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman. Listen to
> >the people who aren't selling anything.

> ...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?

I am so sick of this I can't stand it. Look, doctors go through hell to
get those medical degrees and be able to treat folks. They don't do it
for the money. No one could get through their residency if that's all
they were after. They are there because they want to help people. The
whole educational system they are put through is designed to get rid of
the ones that are in it for themselves.

Basically, I don't deal with the damned health food stores or the herbal
salesmen. I'm sick to death of them. They don't care if I get well or
not, they just want to sell the current fad herb.

Now, that said, I'm off to brew my nice medicinal herbal tea. It's
helping. I didn't get the recipe from any healthfood store either. It
isn't made up of a bunch of capsules of herbs I have to take a bunch of
times a day. Nope. Just dried herbs brewed a long time (longer than
any herbal books suggest) and sweetened with honey. After that, I'll
take my Accolate and use my Flovent and Serevent inhalers.

Loki

[loki]

Janine Vandenberg wrote:

> loki wrote:

> > I never understood bee pollen for folks with allergies. Now, local
> > honey is a different matter. That particular treatment is ages old.

> Shortly after being diagnosed I was in a public washroom with some mild
> (in comparison to what has followed) breathing problems. I had taken my
> inhaler and was waiting for it to kick in, when another lady asked if I
> had asthma. When I said yes, she said to try honey. At the time, I
> could not see a connection with honey and asthma. I have, however used
> honey whenever I have a cold (honey in tea). Do you know the connection
> with honey and asthma? Does it perhaps soothe the throat?
> Perhaps..reduce mucus? Just wondering...Janine

I don't know of a direct connection between honey and asthma but of one
between honey and allergies. I presume that since asthma is frequently
triggered by allergies that would be the reason.

The honey must be local and must be "raw". The idea is that there will
be some pollen remaining in the honey but not enough to trigger an
allergic reaction. It's the same idea behind allergy shots. You give
the person a minute dose of what they're allergic to and eventually the
body gets over it's sensitivity to that substance.

Honey has a lot of uses. It's frequently used on burns. It keeps out
the infection (antibacterial properties) and helps to moisturize the
skin. It's not used till *after* the heat has left the burn though.
Use cold water first.

I'll ask my friend if there is a direct connection between honey and
asthma.

Loki

[Leapin Larry]

CBI wrote:
>
>In the US herbals can't be patented and so our drug companies don't sponsor
>large trials.

So this is the reason we are not seeing as much research into ayurvedic
herbs as we should be. Because they can't make money because off of it
because herbs can't be patented. What a sad situation!

>In Europe this is not the case. Herbals can be patented. There
>is active research coming out of Europe. Commission E in Germany acts
>similar to the American FDA and evaluates them.

You can't get a patent if "prior art" exists. Since ayurvedic herbs have
been used for treating deceases for thousands of years you can't get a
patent on these herbs just because you did a test on it. This means
there is no incentive for German companies to do these tests either.

>You can't blame the lack of proven efficacy on lack of drug company interest
>as this is only a problem in the US. If there is no evidence you must
>consider that possibly this is because there are no beneficial effects.

No. Your post makes it abundantly clear why drug companies aren't
taking interest in ayurveda. This is not only a problem in the US
because we are not talking about some new herb that some drug
company came acrosss. We are talking about herbs that have been in
use for centuries and so can't be patented.

Your post reaffirms my interest in ayurveda because now I know why
there is no ayurvedic research is being done in the West.

Colin, please take a not of this new information.

LL

[lucian X]

JustaPhD <jsut...@juno.com> wrote:

>loki wrote:
>>lucian X wrote:
>>>CBI <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>>My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman. Listen to
>>>>the people who aren't selling anything.
>>>...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?

>Think this through:
>Doctors make LESS from a patient when their prescibed
>treatment works.
>If a doc prescribes a drug that works, you will have fewer
>office visits, fewer follow up tests.

i understand that. i do end up, nonetheless, pumping huge amounts of money
into the pharmaceutical industry when i find a drug that "works." (read: a
drug that makes my symptoms go away, as long as i purchase and consume it
regularly, eg, anti-inflammants like azmacort)

>So a doctor has NO financial interest in "selling" you on
>any particular drug. Of course, to a large extent, he
>depends on the info from drug companies, who DO have a
>vested interest, but that interest is balanced by the doc's
>interest in getting his patients better.

i was not accusing the doctors in this country of being out to scam the
poor asthmatics out of their money. all i said was that in america (where
i live), a mainstream practitioner is generally going to sell me on a
drug, regardless of his or her own financial stake in it. it's what they
do. they prescribe drugs for sale. they perpetuate a drug industry.

take that however you want.

>It's a system designed to eliminate profit motive -- the guy
>who prescribes the drug makes nothing from their sale. The
>people who profit from the drugs have no direct input in
>getting you to use them. BOTH are regulated to assure that
>what they are pushing is both reasonably safe and
>effective. And information is available to everyone in an
>open forum.

i understand. thank you for the clarification. however, all i was saying
was that every system with a tangible product is out to sell you
something.

if we want to get really sociological here, however, we can also examine
the fact that since the whole of popular asthmatic treatment (at least,
that i've been exposed to, in my experience) is very drug-oriented, we've
designed a self-perpetuating stigma that causes people to believe that
asthmatics need drug-based treatment in order to be well. this is what
keeps them coming back to the pharmaceutical industry, and what keeps
future generations coming to the doctors.

i'm not saying the above is necessarily wrong. i just don't particularly
care for it, and i'm going to find non-drug-oriented ways of surviving my
disease.

[Colin Campbell]

lucian X wrote:

> >My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman. Listen to
> >the people who aren't selling anything.
>
> ...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?

Think of it - has your doctor _ever_ tried to sell you
anything?

[Colin Campbell]

loki wrote:
>
> Colin Campbell wrote:

> I never understood bee pollen for folks with allergies. Now, local
> honey is a different matter. That particular treatment is ages old.

These things work in cycles. What happens is that somebody
comes up with a 'new' product then begins promoting it, as
more people jump on the bandwagon the more things they claim
it will treat. (Why limit your product to one or two
diseases? The more diseases you claim it cure, the larger
your potential market.)

Now what happens is the 'holistic dictors', 'nutritional
counselers', etc. will read these advertisements (this
seems to be the sum total of thier 'training') and they
begin prescribing the stuff.

This cycle will repeat itself when the next fad product
comes out.

BTW, As I keep pointing out, just because a remedy is 'ages
old' does not mean that it really does anything.

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:

> >In the US herbals can't be patented and so our drug companies don't sponsor
> >large trials.
>
> So this is the reason we are not seeing as much research into ayurvedic
> herbs as we should be. Because they can't make money because off of it
> because herbs can't be patented. What a sad situation!

Actually this is why we do not see applied research that is
intended to turn them into products. Remember that the
pharmucitucal companies do very little 'pure' research.
Research of the type you propose is done by universities,
research hospitals, etc.

BTW, even though a 'pure' herb is not patentable, extracts
and herbal mixtures are. Something you might do is see how
many of these 'unpatentable' products have patent numbers on
them the next time you visit a healthfraud (sorry,
healthfood) store.

> You can't get a patent if "prior art" exists. Since ayurvedic herbs have
> been used for treating deceases for thousands of years you can't get a
> patent on these herbs just because you did a test on it. This means
> there is no incentive for German companies to do these tests either.

But you can patent the extracts. Since most herbs have to
be processed in some way to ensure purity and predictable
effects - then the herbs are no longer 'natural' and thus
patentable.

> No. Your post makes it abundantly clear why drug companies aren't
> taking interest in ayurveda. This is not only a problem in the US
> because we are not talking about some new herb that some drug
> company came acrosss. We are talking about herbs that have been in
> use for centuries and so can't be patented.

Then can you explain why the rest of the scientific
community takes no intrest also? The pharmicutical
companies are a very small part of our countries scienmtific
base - and don't do that kind of research anyway.

>
> Your post reaffirms my interest in ayurveda because now I know why
> there is no ayurvedic research is being done in the West.

No you do not. For example why are the proponets of
ayurveda not doing research? Why are the universities and
other research orginizations not doing research?

If your treatment is so effective why are the ayurvedic
doctors not writing scientific papers? Why are they not
conducting studies to demonstrate its effectivness?

[Colin Campbell]

Leapin Larry wrote:
>
> Colin Campbell (co...@pacbell.net) wrote:
>
> > No because I stated that it was a terratogen and told you
> > where to go for more information.
>
> If you make authoritative statements then the onus is on
> you to back up your claims, especially because we know you
> are not qualified to make those statements.

I did, that is why I supplied the citation.

[lucian X]

loki <lo...@inlink.com> wrote:
>lucian X wrote:

>>CBI <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
>>>My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman. Listen to
>>>the people who aren't selling anything.
>>...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?

>I am so sick of this I can't stand it.

perhaps you shouldn't read as much into other people's statements in the
future, then.

>Look, doctors go through hell to get those medical degrees and be able to
>treat folks. They don't do it for the money. No one could get through
>their residency if that's all they were after. They are there because
>they want to help people. The whole educational system they are put
>through is designed to get rid of the ones that are in it for themselves.

swell. i'm sure you've had better experiences with doctors than i have.

my only point was that there is a lot (a lot) of money invested regularly
into the medical/pharmaceutical asthma treatment industry. this doesn't
mean it's all a scam and that they're out to get you. it's just putting
the doctor and the herbalist on something of a level-playing field, in
that in both instances there are transactions of funding, and what i
really want to stress here is that in both instances it is one hundred
percent subjective to the doctor/herbalist as to what kind of treatment
you're going to get.

>Basically, I don't deal with the damned health food stores or the herbal
>salesmen. I'm sick to death of them. They don't care if I get well or
>not, they just want to sell the current fad herb.

this is what bothered me about the tone of this thread. generalizations
like the above.

i know that there are some wonderful herbalists. people with knowledge of
the applications of herbs, who are concerned for the well-being of their
prospective customer.

i also know that there are some doctors who have treated me with relative
indifference, and merely assigned me the drug that fit my numbers.

a doctor is not a caring individual simply because he or she made it
through medical school. contrariwise, they are also not indifferent
monsters. the same goes for the herbalist; people are too subjective to
force them into interpersonal pigeon-holes based off of their mainstream
education, or lack thereof.

>Now, that said, I'm off to brew my nice medicinal herbal tea. It's
>helping. I didn't get the recipe from any healthfood store either. It
>isn't made up of a bunch of capsules of herbs I have to take a bunch of
>times a day. Nope. Just dried herbs brewed a long time (longer than
>any herbal books suggest) and sweetened with honey. After that, I'll
>take my Accolate and use my Flovent and Serevent inhalers.

i'm glad you've found something that works for you. myself, i am suffering
still, periodically. i am, however, resolved.

be well,

[lucian X]

Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>lucian X wrote:
>>>My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman. Listen to
>>>the people who aren't selling anything.
>>...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?

>Think of it - has your doctor _ever_ tried to sell you
>anything?

yes.

the money may not go directly into their pockets, or even indirectly, but
both my regular doctor, as well as my asthma/allergy practitioner have
prescribed/recommended to me specific drugs. they told me what they'd do,
and where i could purchase them. this, in my mind, is selling a product.

not to say it's selling a product for the sake of selling a product; i'm
sure that most doctors probably believe it's the best solution to the
problem. but they are still perpetuating a huge industry via product sales
as a means towards a medical end.

[loki]

Time out. There's an attribution here to me but nothing I wrote is
quoted. Just wanted folks to know I didn't say anything about doc's
trying to profit selling drugs.

Loki

JustaPhD wrote:

> loki wrote:
> > lucian X wrote:
> > > CBI <powe...@msn.com> wrote:

> > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > >You make it sound like all prompters of alternative medicine are trying to
> > > >get away with something. Why can't they just be offering another approach
> > > >without any ulterior motives?
> > > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > > [snip]

> > > >My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman. Listen to
> > > >the people who aren't selling anything.

> > > ...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?

> Think this through:

[snip]

[loki]

True enough. People back then used what they had and what they knew
about. Many of the things they used are actually dangerous but were the
best they had then. We have better now. We should use what is best.

Loki

[loki]

lucian X wrote:

> perhaps you shouldn't read as much into other people's statements in the
> future, then.

It has nothing to do with what I read here. It is about what I
encounter in rl.

> swell. i'm sure you've had better experiences with doctors than i have.

I happen to work with a lot of them. I see them from a different point
of view. I see what happens to them when they lose a patient or have
one they can't help. I see what they go through to find something that
works for a patient. I also am in possession of some wonderful doctor
jokes. <grin>

> my only point was that there is a lot (a lot) of money invested regularly
> into the medical/pharmaceutical asthma treatment industry. this doesn't
> mean it's all a scam and that they're out to get you. it's just putting
> the doctor and the herbalist on something of a level-playing field, in
> that in both instances there are transactions of funding, and what i
> really want to stress here is that in both instances it is one hundred
> percent subjective to the doctor/herbalist as to what kind of treatment
> you're going to get.

Yes it is. Both are basically using experience as a guide to what
*might* work for you. Both are basically guessing and praying.

> >Basically, I don't deal with the damned health food stores or the herbal
> >salesmen. I'm sick to death of them. They don't care if I get well or
> >not, they just want to sell the current fad herb.

> this is what bothered me about the tone of this thread. generalizations
> like the above.

> i know that there are some wonderful herbalists. people with knowledge of
> the applications of herbs, who are concerned for the well-being of their
> prospective customer.

I also know some wonderful herbalists. I didn't say a word about
herbalists. I said I'm sick of herb salesmen. Big, huge, gigantic in
fact, difference. I'm an herbalist myself.

> i also know that there are some doctors who have treated me with relative
> indifference, and merely assigned me the drug that fit my numbers.

Yeah, they get busy and burn out. It happens. It shouldn't.

> a doctor is not a caring individual simply because he or she made it
> through medical school. contrariwise, they are also not indifferent
> monsters. the same goes for the herbalist; people are too subjective to
> force them into interpersonal pigeon-holes based off of their mainstream
> education, or lack thereof.

Like I said before, I'm not knocking herbalists.

> >Now, that said, I'm off to brew my nice medicinal herbal tea. It's
> >helping. I didn't get the recipe from any healthfood store either. It
> >isn't made up of a bunch of capsules of herbs I have to take a bunch of
> >times a day. Nope. Just dried herbs brewed a long time (longer than
> >any herbal books suggest) and sweetened with honey. After that, I'll
> >take my Accolate and use my Flovent and Serevent inhalers.

> i'm glad you've found something that works for you. myself, i am suffering
> still, periodically. i am, however, resolved.

I hope you get better.

Loki

[CBI]

You can't get a patent if "prior art" exists. Since ayurvedic herbs have
been used for treating deceases for thousands of years you can't get a
patent on these herbs just because you did a test on it. This means
there is no incentive for German companies to do these tests either

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sometimes I wonder if you are reading the whole response or just skimming
for the parts you want to read. The "prior arts" can infact be patented by
anyone who wants to prove their worth in Europe. You are confusing US law
with the laws of others.

If no one in Europe has done studies to prove the worth this means that no
one has been convinced enough to go ahead and prove it (including its
practitioners), or that it can't be proven.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.

Leapin Larry wrote in message <6icnd3$m...@chile.earthlink.net>...

>CBI wrote:
>>
>>In the US herbals can't be patented and so our drug companies don't
sponsor
>>large trials.
>
>
>So this is the reason we are not seeing as much research into ayurvedic
>herbs as we should be. Because they can't make money because off of it
>because herbs can't be patented. What a sad situation!
>

>>In Europe this is not the case. Herbals can be patented. There
>>is active research coming out of Europe. Commission E in Germany acts
>>similar to the American FDA and evaluates them.
>

>You can't get a patent if "prior art" exists. Since ayurvedic herbs have
>been used for treating deceases for thousands of years you can't get a
>patent on these herbs just because you did a test on it. This means
>there is no incentive for German companies to do these tests either.
>

>>You can't blame the lack of proven efficacy on lack of drug company
interest
>>as this is only a problem in the US. If there is no evidence you must
>>consider that possibly this is because there are no beneficial effects.
>
>

>No. Your post makes it abundantly clear why drug companies aren't
>taking interest in ayurveda. This is not only a problem in the US
>because we are not talking about some new herb that some drug
>company came acrosss. We are talking about herbs that have been in
>use for centuries and so can't be patented.
>

>Your post reaffirms my interest in ayurveda because now I know why
>there is no ayurvedic research is being done in the West.
>

[CBI]

The AMA does not allow MD's to sell the products they prescribe. If my
patients feel that I helped them they come back. If they don't, they don't.
I make the same money whether I prescribe inhalers, herbs, lifestyle
modifications, or any other therapy. If there is an alternative therapy that
works (there are many) it is all the more in my interest to learn of it and
use it. I get more satisfied patients and make more money.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.

lucian X wrote in message ...

>CBI <> wrote:
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>You make it sound like all prompters of alternative medicine are trying to
>>get away with something. Why can't they just be offering another approach
>>without any ulterior motives?
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>[snip]
>>My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman. Listen
to
>>the people who aren't selling anything.
>
>...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?
>
>
>

[CBI]

"Doctors make LESS from a patient when their prescibed
treatment works."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This, of course, assumes that there is no such thing as a reputation, no
other patients around to transfer their care, and that happy patients will
not develop new illnesses. By this logic the large centers of excellence
would all go broke immediately, leaving only incompetent physicians and
hospitals. Yeah, I know -- Here come the jokes.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Of course, to a large extent, he
depends on the info from drug companies"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, by your own analogy, the drug companies are to doctors as people like
Weil and Chopra are to herbalists. My point exactly.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.

powe...@msn.com
JustaPhD wrote in message <354AA84A...@juno.com>...

>loki wrote:
>> lucian X wrote:

>> > CBI <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
>> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > >You make it sound like all prompters of alternative medicine are
trying to
>> > >get away with something. Why can't they just be offering another
approach
>> > >without any ulterior motives?
>> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > [snip]
>> > >My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman.
Listen to
>> > >the people who aren't selling anything.
>>
>> > ...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?
>

>Think this through:
>
>Doctors make LESS from a patient when their prescibed
>treatment works.
>
>If a doc prescribes a drug that works, you will have fewer
>office visits, fewer follow up tests.

>So a doctor has NO financial interest in "selling" you on
>any particular drug. Of course, to a large extent, he
>depends on the info from drug companies, who DO have a
>vested interest, but that interest is balanced by the doc's
>interest in getting his patients better.
>

[CBI]

"................have

prescribed/recommended to me specific drugs. they told me what they'd do,
and where i could purchase them. this, in my mind, is selling a product"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then they are poor salesmen indeed. They never got paid for the sale ! What
marvelously generous and giving people these doctors must be to be providing
their sales services for free.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.
powe...@msn.com

lucian X wrote in message ...

>Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>lucian X wrote:

>>>>My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman.
Listen to
>>>>the people who aren't selling anything.
>>>...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?

>>Think of it - has your doctor _ever_ tried to sell you
>>anything?
>
>yes.
>
>the money may not go directly into their pockets, or even indirectly, but
>both my regular doctor, as well as my asthma/allergy practitioner have
>prescribed/recommended to me specific drugs. they told me what they'd do,
>and where i could purchase them. this, in my mind, is selling a product.
>
>not to say it's selling a product for the sake of selling a product; i'm
>sure that most doctors probably believe it's the best solution to the
>problem. but they are still perpetuating a huge industry via product sales
>as a means towards a medical end.
>
>
>

[Colin Campbell]

lucian X wrote:

> my only point was that there is a lot (a lot) of money invested regularly
> into the medical/pharmaceutical asthma treatment industry. this doesn't
> mean it's all a scam and that they're out to get you. it's just putting
> the doctor and the herbalist on something of a level-playing field, in
> that in both instances there are transactions of funding, and what i
> really want to stress here is that in both instances it is one hundred
> percent subjective to the doctor/herbalist as to what kind of treatment
> you're going to get.

Actually the docot's treatment tends to be more objective.
The doctor will perform a medical examination, make a
diagnosis and then select a _proven_ method of treatment.

A herbalist typically cannot even perform an examination
since they typically have no medical training whatsoever
(usually they have no scientific knowlege of herbs either).

The only way to put a doctor and a herbalist on a level
playing field would be to make the herbalist meet the same
educational and training standards that a doctor does. Of
course any attempt at requiring herbalists meet some sort of
minimum requirements is met with cries that this will
'destroy the industry.'

And we _really_ need better consumer-protection laws in the
alternative medicine industry.

[Colin Campbell]

lucian X wrote:

> >Think of it - has your doctor _ever_ tried to sell you
> >anything?
>
> yes.
>
> the money may not go directly into their pockets, or even indirectly, but
> both my regular doctor, as well as my asthma/allergy practitioner have
> prescribed/recommended to me specific drugs. they told me what they'd do,
> and where i could purchase them. this, in my mind, is selling a product.

Actually, they are recommending a product. And no money
goes into thier pockets -either directrly or indirectly.
Contrary to the lies put out by many alternative medicine
proponents, doctors do not recieve commissions off of
prescriptions.

[Colin Campbell]

lucian X wrote:

> i understand that. i do end up, nonetheless, pumping huge amounts of money
> into the pharmaceutical industry when i find a drug that "works." (read: a
> drug that makes my symptoms go away, as long as i purchase and consume it
> regularly, eg, anti-inflammants like azmacort)

So a company is making a product that is benefiting you.
Since there is no cure for asthma it is regarded as a
chronic illness and wise asthmatics know that they are
better off using thier medications as directed.

> i was not accusing the doctors in this country of being out to scam the
> poor asthmatics out of their money. all i said was that in america (where
> i live), a mainstream practitioner is generally going to sell me on a
> drug, regardless of his or her own financial stake in it. it's what they
> do. they prescribe drugs for sale. they perpetuate a drug industry.

Because a doctor is going to stick with threapies that
_work_. Your comment is like saying that the automobile
companies perpuate the gasoline industry.

> if we want to get really sociological here, however, we can also examine
> the fact that since the whole of popular asthmatic treatment (at least,
> that i've been exposed to, in my experience) is very drug-oriented, we've
> designed a self-perpetuating stigma that causes people to believe that
> asthmatics need drug-based treatment in order to be well. this is what
> keeps them coming back to the pharmaceutical industry, and what keeps
> future generations coming to the doctors.

I suggest that you go and read the '97 asthma treatment
guidelines. We use drug-based treatments because those have
been proven to be safe and effective.

BTW, you should also remember that the 'active ingredients'
in herbs are all drugs themselves.

[CBI]

"Studies have been done on ayurvedic herbs. This link has some articles:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/"

What is this ? This is not a site on any herbal remedy. This is the NIH
sponsored search engine of medical literature. BTW everyone has access. Now
you are just insulting everyone's intelligence.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.
powe...@msn.com

Leapin Larry wrote in message <6ie2ik$8...@chile.earthlink.net>...

>CBI (powe...@msn.com) wrote:
>>
>> Sometimes I wonder if you are reading the whole response or just skimming
>> for the parts you want to read. The "prior arts" can infact be patented
by
>> anyone who wants to prove their worth in Europe. You are confusing US law
>> with the laws of others.
>

>Can this really be true? Does this also apply to the software industry?
>Because if it does then I can take some algorithms people have been using
>for decades, "prove their worth", and patent it in Europe! I did some
>research to see if this really is the case, because if it is then I can
>become a millionaire overnight. I was disappointed, however, because I did
>not find anything that confirms this.
>
>The following documents deal with patent law, differences in patent
>law between various countries, and issues related to medicine.
>
>http://www.carolinapatents.com/ts_articles/trade_secret3.htm
>http://www.lawmoney.com/public/contents/publications/MIP/mip9703/mip9703.8.
html
>http://www.interpharma.co.uk/iss3.htm
>http://www.lawsch.uga.edu/~jipl/vol3/douglass.html

>
>> If no one in Europe has done studies to prove the worth this means that
no
>> one has been convinced enough to go ahead and prove it (including its
>> practitioners), or that it can't be proven.
>

>If it can't be proven then someone should let the FDA know because even
>the FDA is researching some ayurvedic herbs, and are working to produce
>drugs that may help treat tumors etc.
>
>Studies have been done on ayurvedic herbs. This link has some articles:
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/
>Unfortunately I don't have access to the documents so I don't know what
>these research papers say about ayurveda.
>
>LL
>
>
>
>

[JustaPhD]

loki wrote:
> lucian X wrote:
> > CBI <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > >You make it sound like all prompters of alternative medicine are trying to
> > >get away with something. Why can't they just be offering another approach
> > >without any ulterior motives?
> > >~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > [snip]

> > >My advice is to not believe the car salesman or the herb salesman. Listen to
> > >the people who aren't selling anything.
>
> > ...as if the mainstream treaters of asthma aren't selling anything?

Think this through:

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>Actually the docot's treatment tends to be more objective.
>The doctor will perform a medical examination, make a
>diagnosis and then select a _proven_ method of treatment.

You mean, like allergy shots?

>A herbalist typically cannot even perform an examination
>since they typically have no medical training whatsoever
>(usually they have no scientific knowlege of herbs either).

>The only way to put a doctor and a herbalist on a level
>playing field would be to make the herbalist meet the same
>educational and training standards that a doctor does.

Many ayurvedic physicians have M.D. in allopathy.

Visit Dr. Scott Gerson's web page, for example, at www.niam.com

LL

[Leapin Larry]

CBI (powe...@msn.com) wrote:

> Then they are poor salesmen indeed. They never got paid for the sale ! What
> marvelously generous and giving people these doctors must be to be providing
> their sales services for free.

They got paid all right, if you consider allopathy doctors and allopathy
drug vendors as a whole. The allopathy drug vendors won't make any money
if doctors didn't prescribe their drugs. The allopathy doctors won't make
any money if the drug vendors didn't sell any allopathy drugs. Thus they
depend on each other and use each other to make money. They are parts of
one industry and money made by one part benefits the other, and if one
part didn't make any money the other part will suffer too.

LL

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell wrote:
>
>Think of it - has your doctor _ever_ tried to sell you
>anything?

Yes. Allergy shots.

This particular doctor was quite unethical too. He tried to get insurance
to pay in advance for a whole year's worth of serum. Insurance refused,
saying they will only pay for shots given to me -- they will not pay for
the serum the doctor keeps in his refrigerator.

After a year was up, insurance required the doctor to examine me before
applying for preapproval for further shots. But I didn't go because
I had become disillisioned by this time. Later I found out that he got
preapproval any way, even without my knowledge or consent, and even
though I had stopped going to him for shots for a few months!

I have since switched to another doctor.

Very likely there are many doctors who are more interested in your
well-being than in making money. But from my experience such doctors
are few in number.

LL

[Leapin Larry]

CBI (powe...@msn.com) wrote:
> The AMA does not allow MD's to sell the products they prescribe. If my
> patients feel that I helped them they come back. If they don't, they don't.
> I make the same money whether I prescribe inhalers, herbs, lifestyle
> modifications, or any other therapy. If there is an alternative therapy that
> works (there are many) it is all the more in my interest to learn of it and
> use it. I get more satisfied patients and make more money.

But your background and training is in allopathy. As long as allopathy
remains popular you have an edge over practitioners of less popular
systems such as ayurveda. Ayurveda is competition for you. If ayurveda
becomes popular then your years of experience in allopathic medicine
no longer gives you an edge. You are better prepared to sell allopathy
than ayurveda.

LL

[Leapin Larry]

[Leapin Larry]

Finally! Here is some information about ayurveda from a
Government web site.

Yippee!

Try and refute the information below, Colin you know-it-all!

http://altmed.od.nih.gov/oam/what-is-cam/fields/alternative.shtml

Ayurveda is India’s traditional, natural system of medicine
that has been practiced for more than 5,000 years. Ayurveda
provides an integrated approach to preventing and treating
illness through lifestyle interventions and natural therapies.
Ayurvedic theory states that all disease begins with an
imbalance or stress in the individual’s consciousness.
Lifestyle interventions are a major Ayurvedic preventive and
therapeutic approach. There are 10 Ayurveda clinics in North
America, including one hospital-based clinic that has served
25,000 patients since 1985.

In India, Ayurvedic practitioners receive state-recognized,
institutionalized training in parallel to their physician
counterparts in India’s state-supported systems for
conventional Western biomedicine and homeopathic medicine.
The research base is growing concerning the physiological
effects of meditative techniques and yoga postures in Indian
medical literature and Western psychological literature.
Published studies have documented reductions in
cardiovascular disease risk factors, including blood pressure,
cholesterol, and reaction to stress, in individuals who
practice Ayurvedic methods.

Laboratory and clinical studies on Ayurvedic herbal
preparations and other therapies have shown them to have a
range of potentially beneficial effects for preventing and
treating certain cancers, treating infectious disease,
promoting health, and treating aging. Mechanisms underlying
these effects may include free-radical scavenging effects,
immune system modulation, brain neurotransmitter modulation,
and hormonal effects.

[Leapin Larry]

Colin Campbell (co...@pacbell.net) wrote:
> > If you make authoritative statements then the onus is on
> > you to back up your claims, especially because we know you
> > are not qualified to make those statements.
>
> I did, that is why I supplied the citation.

You said "these herbs are suspected teratogens means that they
will never become pharmaceuticals unless they have been demonstrated
to be the _only_ effective treatment for a particular disease."

Then I dug up a web site that basically said all medicines are
teratogens! Here it is once again:
http://crystal.biol.csufresno.edu:8080/projects/42.html

The ball is now in your court. You have been exposed. You have
extrapolated well beyond the citations.

LL

[Leapin Larry]

CBI <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
>"Studies have been done on ayurvedic herbs. This link has some articles:
>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/"
>

>What is this ? This is not a site on any herbal remedy. This is the NIH
>sponsored search engine of medical literature. BTW everyone has access. Now
>you are just insulting everyone's intelligence.

Calm down. I did not say it is a site on herbal remedy. I said the
site has articles on ayurveda. Just type "ayurveda" in the space
provided and hit the button marked "Search". If no articles on
ayurveda shows up then I have certainly insulted everyone's
intelligence!

One of the articles is titled "Conquering the common cough with ayurveda."

Unfortunately you can't read the entire article -- you have to order
the article. They ask for a userid and password. It is not straight
forward to get an account either.

Now who is insulting whose intelligence?

LL

[lucian X]

CBI <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
>"................have

>prescribed/recommended to me specific drugs. they told me what they'd do,
>and where i could purchase them. this, in my mind, is selling a product"

>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>Then they are poor salesmen indeed. They never got paid for the sale !

hi, i'm called lucian, and i work as an accessory salesperson at fry's
electronics. i sell hundreds of products every day. i am not on
commission. i receive nothing directly for anything which i can sell. i am
paid an hourly rate for my services and nothing more.

does this mean i'm not selling products to people? does this mean that if
i sell 90% of the ignorant consumer market that comes through the store on
the intel pentium II chip that i'm not, in my own subtle way, helping
influence the market share and social perceptions of the chip business?

or let's say i choose to influence the incoming consumers towards an
alternative processor like the amd k6. the computer department i work in
alone brings in on average six to seven hundred thousand dollars in
computer sales a week. i am one of the perhaps five people in my
department with enough product knowledge to sell a customer on a
particular motherboard architecture.

you do the math on how many consumers i am going to directly influence in
their purchasing power. now. does the fact that i'm not on commission
change the fact that i am selling a product and influencing not only the
market share of a particular product, but also the social perceptions of
one company versus another?

>What marvelously generous and giving people these doctors must be to be
>providing their sales services for free.

last i checked doctor's made a pretty good living. you'll note, again,
that i am not accusing doctor's of making direct profits off of the
products they sell their patients. i am just saying that there are
products for sale, and they get sold. in light of that, perceptions are
altered to the tone of the doctor's own recommendation of a given product.

i never said it was wrong. i'm just trying to point out that doctors are
selling products as well. take that however you like.

[lucian X]

Colin Campbell <co...@pacbell.net> wrote:

>lucian X wrote:
>>>Think of it - has your doctor _ever_ tried to sell you
>>>anything?

>>yes.
>>the money may not go directly into their pockets, or even indirectly, but
>>both my regular doctor, as well as my asthma/allergy practitioner have

>>prescribed/recommended to me specific drugs. they told me what they'd do,

>>and where i could purchase them. this, in my mind, is selling a product.
>Actually, they are recommending a product. And no money
>goes into thier pockets -either directrly or indirectly.

erm. if you read what i stated (quoted just above your sentence) you'll
notice that you just repeated what i said.

what you're missing is that you don't need to receive money from a sale in
order to sell someone on a product. see my long post to cbi about this.

>Contrary to the lies put out by many alternative medicine
>proponents, doctors do not recieve commissions off of
>prescriptions.

i never meant to imply anything like that. i'm just saying that they are
selling products. you'll note that the definition of "sell" includes "to
promote the sale of."

[Leapin Larry]

Chris Owens (cao...@redsuspenders.com) wrote:
>
> Go to www.nlm.nih.gov, and you have access to the biggest database
> of scientific literature ever published. Accessible right from your
> computer, and Grateful Med makes searching VERY easy.

You can search, but you can't read, apparently.

It appears that you can only read abstracts for free, not the full
article. Am I right? I found several papers on ayurveda, such as
a treatment for parkinson's decease, but couldn't read them.

LL

[CBI]

Do you care which product they buy, as long as they buy one ? No I doubt you
do. And if they paid a fee just to get into the store and speak with you,
irregardless of what they bought, would you push one product over another ?
Or would you sincerely try to give them the best deal for them, even if it
was to stay with their old system and not buy anything ?

Thank you for the enlightening analogy.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.
powe...@msn.com

lucian X wrote in message <29H21.6631$Fu5.5...@news2.teleport.com>...
>CBI <powe...@msn.com> wrote:
>>"................have

>>prescribed/recommended to me specific drugs. they told me what they'd do,

[CBI]

They don't ask for user ID and password to do the search. They ask for it if
you want to utilize the service they offer where they photocopy the article
for you and mail it to you. This is just for billing purposes. Give them
your credit card and they will mail you the article.

--
Good Luck,
CBI, M.D.
powe...@msn.com

Leapin Larry wrote in message <6ie6dm$d...@chile.earthlink.net>...