上位 200 件のコメント全て表示する 280

[–]codefolder 88ポイント89ポイント  (11子コメント)

"... in roughly 5-10% of people with a particular genetic susceptibility, aristolochic acid damages kidneys and/or causes mutations in DNA that lead to cancer."

[–]GentleMareFucker 35ポイント36ポイント  (8子コメント)

people with a particular genetic susceptibility,

A percentage of a percentage - but what is that other percentage (that I just quoted)?

[–]sparky_1966 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

No- it's 5-10% of people have a genetic susceptibility. Of those with the susceptibility, aristolochic acid is toxic to 100% of them. From the article, 1800 Dutch women were given aristolochic acid as part of a weight loss diet for 20 months. 100 of them developed kidney failure and ended up on dialysis. Cancer develops later, and was from seeds contaminating local bread in the Balkans, percentages and accurate statistics are unlikely.

[–]bathrobehero 9ポイント10ポイント  (5子コメント)

A percentage of a percentage

Good enough for me if it's about cancer.

[–]the_fascist 18ポイント19ポイント  (3子コメント)

better hold your breath around buses and avoid all grilled foods`

[–]8head -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I actually know someone who does this.

[–]exarkun108 -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thanks for this; I knew the headline was sensationalism.

[–]vilnius2013[S] 22ポイント23ポイント  (5子コメント)

Original paper: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.15252/embr.201642375/abstract

"Global hazards of herbal remedies: lessons from Aristolochia"

[–]mozartbond 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Whish people were as zealously against industrial pollution as they are against traditional medicine.

[–]latticusnon 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

So, talk about it on the internet but otherwise no effect comes of it? I feel like people are equally zealous in both cases if that's your metric.

[–]thenoorys -3ポイント-2ポイント  (0子コメント)

for real. this is basically bald face propaganda to push industrialized medicine as the only option.

[–]qaaqa [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Lets compare it to corporate cure disasters and overdose deaths.

And just for good measure lets add a cost factor as well.

That would be truly sciencey

[–]JohnAlanTuckerPhD | Organic Chemistry [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Sure, but for remedies that don't actually do anything, the risk/benefit ratio is infinite.

[–]Justtryme90PhD|Chemical Biology 49ポイント50ポイント  (124子コメント)

Herbal remedy's that worked we have studied and are called medicine. Why people put their trust in arbitrary things because they are "natural" and distrust actual medicine is perplexing to me.

[–]MaxSupernova 40ポイント41ポイント  (60子コメント)

Traditional remedies are usually seen as at worst benign and at best helpful, whereas modern medicine is full of fast-talking men at the end of drug commercials listing scary side-effects.

Those side effects are scary concepts, so the "safe" medicine is far more appealing even if its efficacy hasn't been demonstrated beyond folk tales.

[–]DemiDualism 6ポイント7ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yep. It's not about stupidity, it's about risk aversion in the face of a decision they are not educated enough to make properly

[–]podkayne3000 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I have nothing against traditional medicine, but, where I am, even with insurance, it's a lot cheaper and easier to pay $10 for a bottle of herbs for a minor health problem than it is to get an appointment with a doctor and pay for a prescription.

[–]krali_ 6ポイント7ポイント  (2子コメント)

It's the appeal to nature, a widely used and very efficient rethorical tactic. Most "common sense" people are very susceptible to it.

[–]thenoorys 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

No, appeal to nature would be like trying to justify a morally frowned upon action with a buzzword like human nature.

The fact that plants exist in nature that remedy you is just a fact, a fact so glaring that it's where pharma get's it's "good medicine" from too

[–]TK464 [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

No, you're appealing to nature by implying that the basic plant is better than the processed product for no reason other than "corporate bad and nature good". You act like Pharmacy companies just take flowers and cram them into pills and totally ignore the refinement and precision that goes into medicine.

[–]peekay427 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

I work with a lot of Naturopathic Doctors and it kills me how unwilling many of them are to take a rational, evidence based look at their practices. I personally think that there can be a real place for medicine like this, but only when the scope is limited, when modalities that are proven to be ineffective are cut out and when dosage and effectiveness of the medicine is understood instead of guessed at.

[–]Seen_Unseen 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

How can the lack of trust in traditional medicine be perplexing when we live in a modern age where we can synthesise the working elements in these neat little pills where you know exactly what you are getting without any contamination. While on the other hand, traditional medicine may have some working ingredients, maybe not, you have no clue how much you are getting exactly and you have no clue about how clean it all is.

Mind you I'm only an engineer but anyone proclaiming traditional medicine as a good alternative I find hard to take serious. We've gone from 5000 years from digging the woods and trying what works to developing medicine into what it is these days. With medicine being analyzed, tested, re-analyzed, re-modeled up to what you are getting today. And then there is the alternative, 5000 years ago what we did, have a bite of this shit and maybe it helps. Fuck testing and all that shit, just have a bite.

[–]Moose_brain 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's more a distrust of the medical establishment in general more so than modern medicine

[–]rasht 7ポイント8ポイント  (15子コメント)

I don't know maybe because iatrogenesis ( http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/03/cause-of-death-united-states-medical-error ) is one of the leading causes of death, and we "just" left the realms of heroic medicine?

Nassim Nicholas Taleb has a nice argument about natural medicine in his book Antifragile basing it on how we really don't know the true side-effects of medicine (which I think is certainly the case - even "benign" stuff like paracetamol http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3921468/ is in doubt) and that at least the "natural remedies" were through a "trial of fire" (longer period of testing). I recommend reading the book because I can't do his argumentation justice.

Of course that isn't to say we should distrust everything that isn't "unnatural" and trust everything that is "natural" but I don't think the strategy of avoiding doctors and self-medicating with traditional remedies can be easily dismissed.

[–]Snuggly_Person 12ポイント13ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't know maybe because iatrogenesis ( http://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/may/03/cause-of-death-united-states-medical-error ) is one of the leading causes of death, and we "just" left the realms of heroic medicine?

This logically follows if medicine is successful, because you're so much less likely to die of natural causes. If medicine could cure every illness when applied correctly then 100% of deaths would be due to medical mistakes.

The result you really need to establish your point is that you're worse off going to a doctor than not for any given illness, and that's almost certainly untrue.

and that at least the "natural remedies" were through a "trial of fire" (longer period of testing).

Then why are so many of them completely terrible? Remedies in the Middle Ages were hilariously incompetent, as is traditional Chinese medicine. If this longer period of testing actually weeds out poor or ineffective medicines, why are so many traditional medicines we see now terrible?

[–]Gregger90 5ポイント6ポイント  (7子コメント)

The problem is that most natural remedies say that they can "improve vitality", "reduce pain from joints", "make you feel healthier", "strenghten your immunesystem". These things are VERY arbitrary. Measuring these accurately is probably impossible.

There are no natural remedies (i.e. not natural stuff that we have turned into medicine) that cure cancer, reduce a heavy inflammtion from Mb crohns, save you from hyperglycemia, put you under anasthesia so that operations can be performed or cure chronic pancreatitis pain.

Natural remedies are focused at young, healthy people that doesn't even need "medicine". It's not medicine and if the natural remedies actually worked "big pharma" would have sold them. There is EXTREME amounts of money in natural remedies.

[–]folderol 9ポイント10ポイント  (3子コメント)

Those who dismiss outright are in my mind arrogant and short sighted too. I see what you are saying and agree even though this author probably said it better. I might check out his book because the subject does interest me and I think gets crapped on by arrogant people far too often. We could find the key to perfect health growing right under out feet and miss it because we believe we are above nature and won't bother to see what it has to offer because there isn't a ton of money to be made when someone can grow medicine in their own backyard.

[–]rasht 5ポイント6ポイント  (0子コメント)

Personally I doubt that the key to perfect health will be as simple as growing our own medicine (IRRC one of the biggest problems of growing herbs for medicinal purposes is how to get an effective dose).

I am partial to the idea expressed in Antifragile that the best thing you can do for your health is expose yourself to low amounts of stress ors followed by rest.

So vaccination, intermediate fasting, exercising so on and so forth.

The key idea from the book is also not "what medicine" but "not medicine" i.e don't medicate when you don't have to (i.e unless the "payoff" is big - serious diseases, cancer so on and so forth).

EDIT: spelling errors

[–]SoftwareMaven 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Ironically, one's vegetable garden and a small pasture to grow grass for a couple of animals may be that solution, but, as a society, we have been trained to look inside a child-proof bottle for that solution instead.

[–]folderol 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thank you. And it often seems like to do otherwise gets you automatically called a snake oil salesman or snake oil consumer or just ignorant of science in general.

[–]VaughnHolland 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Did you read the study or just the article? I'm wondering how they defined medical error and if they accounted for those who were likely euthanized as technically that is still medical error in the USA.

[–]rasht -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Haven't read the study but you can find it here: http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139 . Most I read about medical errors was in the beforementioned Antifragile.

[–]beatvox 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

most medicine today is a synthesized form of herbal remedy..and patented. Vinblastine and vincristine (both chemo cytostatics ) for example..synthesized from the rosy periwinkle plant.

Merinol...is basically a weed pill. Just don't read the side effects.

[–]folderol 0ポイント1ポイント  (20子コメント)

It's also perplexing that people would shit on herbs in favor of what the pharmaceutical companies make that often have multiple serious side-effects. We call radiation medicine for pete's sake. Blind faith is stupid but to think that plants and things don't have beneficial or medicinal chemicals in them is equally stupid. We have evolved on this planet and so we should expect some things on that planet to be the key to health. Instead we only study what the chemist makes and shit on the alternatives because some practitioners are quacks.

[–]Oatcutter 17ポイント18ポイント  (5子コメント)

We have evolved on this planet and so we should expect some things on that planet to be the key to health.

This does not make sense at all beyond things like nutrients and oxygen. The idea that our bodies evolved to allow certain compounds in nature to 'fix' us when things go wrong is nonsense. The selection pressure to having a specific problem be treated by a specific plant is unbelievably small.

From a plant's perspective there is no reason at all for a plant to evolve a compound that makes us want to kill and eat it. Most herbal ingredients evolved as poisons to stop animals eating them.

[–]wilzmcgee 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actually there is a great documentary(botany of desire) about how several plants have evolved to include humans in it reproductive scheme. It won’t come as any surprise that survival is the number one goal in the animal kingdom. But to ensure success on a continual basis, many creatures have opted to form alliances rather than go it alone. Why would one think that this couldn't happen to a human and a plant?

[–]folderol 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

When did I ever say that plants would or could evolve to fix us. I'm saying that we have come to ingest certain things that have ensured our survival. Our bodies could have adapted to them. Why is everyone insisting that I think plants are here to fix us? I'm not even suggested that medicine is supposed to be a fix like we use it these days in the west. Prevention of disease in the first place is ideal but we don't do that because there isn't billions of dollars in that.

[–]Oatcutter 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm saying that we have come to ingest certain things that have ensured our survival.

Food, water, oxygen, nutrients, vitamins.

Our bodies could have adapted to them.

We have adapted to some of these chemicals, like alcohol for example. But we have not adapted to allow them heal us. There really isn't any selection pressure there. A random mutation that allows allows a compound in aristolochia to treat edema is a minuscule advantage that won't be selected for. Having your body react to a herbal compound in a way that could treat a disease is far more likely to open the body up to other bad effects than be useful in disease treatment. We have not adapted or evolved to allow rare chemicals to affect our internal chemistry. When it does work it's not by design, it's an accident.

[–]folderol -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

I understand that none of it is be design or at least I think I do. I see that what I'm saying brings that into question. And I'm not really talking about disease as such, rather the states of being that might ward off disease. I look at health as a whole rather than what I see as a more bandaid approach that we use in the west these days. There are so many symbiotic connections on earth and I don't know why we would assume they don't exist for us unless we force them to or in enough quantity to be of benefit. Thanks for sharing and not claiming I need to take basic science courses like most others have.

[–]Classtoise 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's also perplexing that people would shit on herbs in favor of what the pharmaceutical companies make that often have multiple serious side-effects.

The sun causes cancer. In huge doses, anything is bad for you. WATER can kill you (and I don't mean drowning) if you drink too much.

We call radiation medicine for pete's sake.

Chemotherapy is not strictly medicine.

Blind faith is stupid but to think that plants and things don't have beneficial or medicinal chemicals in them is equally stupid.

Of course they do. It's why we made medicine out of these compounds in the first place.

We have evolved on this planet and so we should expect some things on that planet to be the key to health.

That's literally the exact opposite of how evolution works. We've evolved on this planet, so we should expect that other species dedicated to not being eaten have evolved some defenses against us like toxins.

We've adapted to SURVIVE the crazy shit this planet throws at us. It did not get nicer, WE got STRONGER.

Instead we only study what the chemist makes and shit on the alternatives because some practitioners are quacks.

Because the chemist went through years and years and YEARS of school to know this but literally every practitioner of "natural medicines" is either full of shit or a snake oil salesman like Doctor Oz.

[–]wilzmcgee 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Actually I don't think it's to crazy of a notion that plants evolved to consider human consumption. There are many plants that have evolved to include birds eating the fruit and then using their droppings as a seed dispersal method. Mainly because the survival of the plant is based on creating as many offspring possibilities as it can. Since we are the only species to mass produce fields of certain plants. It seems to me that plants evolving to human consumption is really not out of the realm of possibilities.

[–]Classtoise 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Plants did evolve to consider us. It's part of why poison oak is still an issue.

We don't spread their pollen. We just eat them.

[–]thenoorys 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Everyone here skipped Kropotkin's mutualism and still on that neo-Darwinist flow

[–]nik263 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

Thing is they only shit on unproven herbs (sometimes even disproved) Because there are herbs which do work and their extracts are often used in conventional medicine,what's not okay is using the stuff theres no evidence for.

[–]Snuggly_Person 4ポイント5ポイント  (4子コメント)

Modern medicine often comes from traditional remedies, but they need to be tested and 99% of them don't actually work. If it does work, you find the chemical parts that make it work and figure out how to produce them synthetically so that you can make it in the amounts needed to help people.

The planet also doesn't exist to put you in a state of optimum health; evolution doesn't work like that at all. There's absolutely no reason for a random plant to deliberately evolve an ability to kill your virus. There are some circumstances where this happens, since there are so many organisms out there with many common structures, but you shouldn't expect it to be around every corner.

Please take a high school chemistry and biology class. This is ridiculous.

[–]folderol 2ポイント3ポイント  (3子コメント)

I'm actually a chemist genius. I never said they existed around every corner or that chemistry isn't needed to condense things into concentrated or usable form. What I am saying is that healing substances exist in nature and when you call that medicine you get ridiculed out of hand. You too are saying they exist so you must also agree that nature produces what to us is medicine. I never said that the practitioners know what they are doing. I never said that plants exist to makes us anything. But you don't evolve a certain way, you don't even survive unless some things in the environment promote your wellbeing. They exist. What is ridiculous is that you can't even hint that there might be a spec of legitimacy to some natural pathways without being told you need remedial science classes. I call that indoctrination, not education.

[–]wilzmcgee 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

I don't understand why people don't think a plant would evolve considering our consumption of said plant. Hell there are trees out there that evolved it's seed dispersal method from birds eating there fruit and seeds in their droppings.

[–]folderol 2ポイント3ポイント  (1子コメント)

We live in a symbiotic world and the fact that people won't accept that as far as medicine is concerned is beyond me. People don't want the simplest solution because it puts them out of job and out of money. All the proof you need is to realize that western medicine is only good at diagnostics and drugs that don't usually address root cause. They need people to be sick whether they accept that or not. Therefore even though some plants and insects have evolved together it simply can't be the case between plants and people and even if it did they still claim you need them realize the benefits. And I'm not excusing the quacks who do peddle snake oil of which there are an abundance.

[–]Abedeus 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Newsflash, things without "medicinal chemicals" (what a professional term) can't help you. They're, at worst, benign. If it has nothing "chemical" (groan) in it, then it's basically a drink with a funny taste.

The things that CAN help you actually contain active ingredients. That, for better or worse, have side effects. Nothing that can help is completely safe. The worst poison can be used as a drug in small doses, and the best medicine can kill in big doses.

We have evolved on this planet and so we should expect some things on that planet to be the key to health

Yeah, like paracetamol. Pop quiz - does it exist in nature, or is that something "pharmaceutical companies" created?

[–]thenoorys 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Who's to say there isn't a natural analog to paracetmol? Like for instance there's ADHD medicine that is synthesized in labs but I've tried them all and Ephedra and Sweet Flag grass agree with my body more.

So why do we need these synthetic analogs? I can see some cases where the results are superior but mostly seems it's just for patents/capitalism

[–]Sherool 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

"But, but it's natural ..." Well yeah so are Death Cap mushrooms, not everything in nature is safe to consume.

[–]thenoorys 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You could probably bio-synthesize something useful from Death Cap.

[–]Sprinklypoo 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

There are certainly several real and verifiable examples of major corruption in the US medical system. It's not hard to imagine why people don't trust the whole field as a result.

[–]Justtryme90PhD|Chemical Biology 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Corruption in the medical system has nothing to do with distrust in modern medicine as a whole.

[–]thenoorys 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You should ask the people who mistrust modern medicine. Imo the nature of capitalism plays a huge part in my mistrust of modern medicine as a whole

[–]FrigggOffRandy 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Marijuana was an 'herbal remedy' about 5 years ago ,now it's medicine.. I guess some people are more willing to try things that you are.

[–]tha_dood 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Actual medicine is ridiculously expensive, that's your answer in the US anyway

[–]thenewyorkgod 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sometimes. Natural fish oil may help lower triglycerides. That did not stop a pharmaceutical company from patenting the technology to purify it, package it as Lovaza and sell it for $150 a month, by prescription only.

[–]brightstarblack -4ポイント-3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Plants sometimes contain a number of different chemicals, some of these chemicals have positive medical application, others regulate the effects of these chemicals by a number of means and purposes. They may protect the body from harmful reactions from the medicinal chemical. When the one chemical is isolated and made into pill, it may not have the same effects in the absence of the plants many other unstudied compounds. It may also not be as safe, etc. Nature has been time tested and is still in the process of testing. We have evolved alongside plants and the rationale is to trust the living organisms around us.

[–]Justtryme90PhD|Chemical Biology 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Plants sometimes contain a number of different chemicals, some of these chemicals have positive medical application, others regulate the effects of these chemicals by a number of means and purposes.

Great, then additional compounds that function synergistically with the active compound should be studied, and included in a potential medication/treatment.

When the one chemical is isolated and made into pill, it may not have the same effects in the absence of the plants many other unstudied compounds.

Which is why research is performed, to determine an effective treatment.

It may also not be as safe, etc.

Thats what testing is for...

Nature has been time tested and is still in the process of testing. We have evolved alongside plants and the rationale is to trust the living organisms around us.

Nature is not testing for safety with regards to human consumption/use. This is a dangerous way of thinking.

[–]thenoorys -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's not a dangerous way of thinking it's just an out of style way of thinking since modern synthesis of biology theory and cosmological philosophers determined that the universe works in one specific way and is mostly hostile plus slow to adapt.

But that perspective itself is old and dying. It may be that nature is more mutualistic than imagined.

[–]knook 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

For those that haven't seen it yet Frontline did and excellent job as always reporting on the state and dangers or herbal supplements in the US and the industry behind them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supplements-and-safety/

[–]Atlas405 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Seems like its no real news. It´s known since the 90´s or 00´s that Aristolochic acid is toxic:

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/herbal-medicine-and-aristolochic-acid-nephropathy/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12495362

[–]bordslampa 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Found a swedish article saying this from 2007. link

[–]mcampo84 3ポイント4ポイント  (6子コメント)

Can we not refer to herbal remedies as "traditional medicine?"

[–]haladura 11ポイント12ポイント  (0子コメント)

Apparently not, as their use has a centuries long tradition behind it, having been used by physicians and shamans since long before Western Medicine ever existed. But since we are flogging this topic, again, here's an article from Subhuti Dharmannanda,Ph.D, director of the Institute for Traditional Medicine from May 2001. TL:DR: "Clearly, the Aristolochia plants have a widespread use in herbal medicine. There are very diverse presentations concerning the potential for harmful effects, with many sources indicating none and others suggesting harm from large doses or prolonged use. When taken in combination with the current knowledge regarding the potential adverse effects of aristolochic acid, herbalists should regard Aristolochia plants as ones that have a noble history (aristo = noble), but a limited future."

[–]TheJulian 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

The title makes no sense because "traditional medicine" is what we call medicine when we're trying to distinguish it from "alternative medicine".

[–]Adonej 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Paracelsus, Tehuti, Hermes and Hippocrates would have called it medicine. We just redefined what medicine is.

[–]Abedeus 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Then we should just call it medicine too, if it actually works.

[–]vriendhenk 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

The argument "but it is all natural" is usually reflected by replying:

As is snake venom and Ebola....

[–]SuperTeaLove 3ポイント4ポイント  (9子コメント)

Wow, nice use of semantics there. The discussion is about natural plants however, and you can't slide through an argument with something unrelated like that. It's just silly to say that anything that comes from a natural grown plant could be bad for you. Like Cocaine.

Wait, shit.

[–]vriendhenk 5ポイント6ポイント  (4子コメント)

Well everything you concentrate too much will have some side effects...

I really liked this site where floaty float "health-workers" warn their peers about working with essential oils...

That reminds me: newsflash nature wasn't created for us....

everything alive has its own survival strategy...

[–]Psyanide13 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

too much will have some side effects...

It kind of has to otherwise it wouldn't by definition be "too much."

That's just how the words work.

Saying "Too much of anything is bad for you" is the most worthless saying ever as the idea is already conveyed in the words "too much."

[–]vriendhenk 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Point taken...

The thing is that your brain and body might have pretty different optimal quantities of consumed product..

aka your addicted brain will lie to you..and your body will suffer...

[–]benevolinsolence 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah but for some things too much is such a small amount that it's basically safe to say the entire substance has side effects.

[–]Psyanide13 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

And? You're not changing anything. Too much is still too much. Even if it is just a little.

Adding nothing to the conversation of how to define "too much."

[–]Gullex 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

Or tobacco! Or foxglove or poison hemlock or datura or....

[–]thenoorys 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

datura isn't flat out bad, you can have good experiences and alleviate depression if used responsibly. you also have to have a strong mentality and be ready to talk to people who aren't there.

[–]Gullex 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You can say that about a lot of things that are very poisonous in small doses.

[–]mom_with_an_attitude 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah, it really bugs me when the media gets all hyped up because of the negative side effects associated with one herbal medicine.

First of all, Aristolachia is not a commonly used herbal medicine (at least here in the US.)

Second, the vast majority of herbs used medicinally are extremely safe. Can herbs be harmful? Yes, and that is a good reason why one might want to consult a skilled herbalist instead of treating oneself. Like any medicine, herbal medicines have a therapeutic window. Take the right amount and the herb can have a beneficial therapeutic effect. Take too much and the herb can be a poison.(The same is true of pharmaceuticals. In fact most drugs have a much narrower therapeutic window than most herbs and a much greater potential for toxicity and harm.) The vast majority of commonly used herbs have a large therapeutic window, i.e., you can take pretty large amounts safely. (Herbs like slippery elm or even echinacea fall into this category.) There are other herbs that have a very narrow therapeutic window (like belladonna) and herbs that fall into this category are not generally available to the general public.

Third, hundreds of thousands of people die from the side effects of prescribed pharmaceuticals every year. That issue receives very little press. But a few people take too much ephedra and get heart palpitations and everyone freaks out.

[–]stypopodium 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I agree with you! Excellent response

[–]cheesecrystal 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

How about no regulation. How about just releasing the science and let people decide if they want natural selection to take them out.

[–]thenoorys 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That would be ideal and I'm all for non-pharma medicine.

[–]mutant456 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

I support traditional medicine some truth in it

[–]_AISP 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Aristolochia? That's the genus for the Dutch Man's Pipe...shit I had those.

I wonder how it affects the Pipeline swallowtail caterpillars that feed on them. They don't have kidneys, but maybe it affects their Malphigian tubes...

[–]duo_sonic 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Just let people do whatever the hell they want. Why does anyone care? If Im dumb enough to get myself killed, well thats my fault.

[–]mc_kitfox 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

Because this isn't just about you and your stupid decisions. If someone else is dumb enough to get other people killed, do they stop being guilty of getting those people killed just because they were dumb?

This is why people are trying to pass laws that prohibit FDA approval of false medicine instead of banning its consumption. It's not to keep you from doing stupid shit, it's to keep others from profiting off of those stupid enough through deception and misinformation.

[–]thenoorys 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

That becomes a double standard too quickly though because there's plenty FDA approved shit out there right now that is bad and people will die.

You're basically formalizing the inevitability of bad results by leaving in the hands of the state

[–]farstriderr 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah, we should have the FDA regulate these things because it approves such wonder-drugs as Symbicort.

POSSIBLE SIDE EFFECTS:

More common: •Body aches or pain •chills •cough, fever, sneezing, or sore throat •difficulty with breathing •ear congestion •fever •headache •loss of voice •muscle aches •pain or tenderness around the eyes and cheekbones •shortness of breath or troubled breathing •stuffy or runny nose •tightness of the chest or wheezing •unusual tiredness or weakness

Less common: •Abdominal or stomach pain •bladder pain •bloody or cloudy urine •congestion •cough producing mucus •diarrhea •difficult, burning, or painful urination •dryness of the throat •fast, irregular, pounding, or racing heartbeat or pulse •frequent urge to urinate •general feeling of discomfort or illness •hoarseness •joint pain •loss of appetite •lower back or side pain •nausea •noisy breathing •shakiness in the legs, arms, hands, or feet •shivering •sore mouth or tongue •sweating •tender, swollen glands in the neck •trembling or shaking of the hands or feet •trouble with swallowing •trouble with sleeping •voice changes •vomiting •white patches in the mouth or on the tongue

Rare: •Blurred vision •confusion •decreased urine •dizziness or lightheadedness when getting up from a lying or sitting position suddenly •dry mouth •enlarged pupils •fainting •flushed, dry skin •fruit-like breath odor •increased hunger •increased sensitivity of the eyes to light •increased sweating, possibly with fever or cold, clammy skin •increased thirst •increased urination •large, hive-like swelling on the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs, feet, or sex organs •mood changes •muscle cramps •nervousness •numbness or tingling in the hands, feet, or lips •pounding in the ears •seizures •severe chest pain •severe headache •slow, fast, pounding, or irregular heartbeat or pulse •stiff or sore neck •unexplained weight loss

But at least your asthma will be better (maybe).

[–]Dareun 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

What do you call traditional/alternative medicine that work? Medicine

[–]beatvox 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

yeah...not shit. A % of a % of people get this. Amazed they are paying attention to what is bad for a small group of people, versus finding answers in nature (patent free) that will be good for a larger group of people. Note my mention of Patent Free is why this isn't happening.

[–]NukeyTanky -3ポイント-2ポイント  (1子コメント)

i dont get what people have against modern medicine... its herbal remedy that has been studied and improved over hundreds of years.. why dont they start wearing the loincloths and use the stone tools of the time aswell?

[–]thenoorys -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Capitalism and industry has commodified it and formalized it, the good and the bad.

Sweet Flag grass > Rittalin

[–]Sprinklypoo -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

But it's natural! How can it be bad for you?

[–]thenoorys -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

Obvious industrialized medicine propaganda