PDA

View Full Version : "Natural"/"health" foods warning



Humphrey
2003-Sep-26, 11:15 PM
I really love you guys and i hope none of you get hurt. While i personally have my opinions against the use of certain herbs and other "natural" ingrediants to improve certain things like memory, speed, and activity i do want you guys to know a few things if you use them:

-Herbal remedies and drugs do not have to be certified by the FDA.
-Certain herbs can have very dangerous interactions with common over the counter medications and perscription medications.
-all of the side effects are not known of the herbs since not alot of testing is done on them. Just because it has been used for thousands of years does not mean it is safe. Just look at how long trepanation and mercury was used for.



So if any of you take herbal remedies, or other "natural" remedies to improve something ( Like brain function, memory, etc.) please, please, please, please call your doctor or a good pharmacologist and ask them if you should take [Insert name of medicine here] and tell them you take these herbs and "natural" remedies. List all of them.


You could save yourself from damage to your heart, liver, stomach, and a multitude of other ailments.


[spelling and added to the last sentance.]

mike alexander
2003-Sep-26, 11:22 PM
I agree, Humphrey. Pharmacology is my stomping ground, and while much of this cr-stuff is harmless, some is not. Practicing polypharmacy without a degree is not a crime, but it might win you a Darwin award.

Musashi
2003-Sep-27, 12:15 AM
I would not take supplements or 'natural' remedies. But I take an ibuoprofin now and then, and some other OTC drugs for pain and swelling if I need them, so I had to choose other.

Humphrey
2003-Sep-27, 12:20 AM
Even with them I reccomend asking for any interactions.

Like Asprine and alcohol.

space cadet
2003-Sep-27, 12:28 AM
my dad takes ginko bilboa or whatever it is. What's the deal with that stuff?

Musashi
2003-Sep-27, 12:40 AM
I don't drink very often, so it's not really a problem. :)

wedgebert
2003-Sep-27, 12:45 AM
I figure if it doesn't require FDA approval, it must not do anything.

gethen
2003-Sep-27, 12:58 AM
I'm reminded of a friend who was on doctor prescribed blood pressure medication, was on the Adkin's diet, and started using some herbal remedy for another condition. I warned her that she ought to talk to her doctor about the herbal. Her response "It's all natural, so it must be safe."
My comeback, "So is arsenic."

Archer17
2003-Sep-27, 01:11 AM
my dad takes ginko bilboa or whatever it is. What's the deal with that stuff?It's supposed to help you think better as you get older. I read conflicting studies as to whether that's really true. Ginko could cause complications (blood-related) if your Dad ever has impending surgery so, if that's the case, I'd have him discuss it with his doctor beforehand.

Musashi
2003-Sep-27, 01:12 AM
Hemlock is also natural. Natural Gas...natural. I don't really understand that arguement... there are a lot of 'natural' things that can and do kill people all the time, so how can people think that if something is natural, it must be safe?

Humphrey
2003-Sep-27, 01:22 AM
Hemlock is also natural. Natural Gas...natural. I don't really understand that arguement... there are a lot of 'natural' things that can and do kill people all the time, so how can people think that if something is natural, it must be safe?

Its good for you because they can pronounce it.

Now how can you argue with that logic? :-P


I agree with that. The "natural" movement is one of the dumbest things today in the consuper market. A huge ripoff of consumers that most do not realize.

Sammy
2003-Sep-27, 01:25 AM
Hemlock is also natural. Natural Gas...natural. I don't really understand that arguement... there are a lot of 'natural' things that can and do kill people all the time, so how can people think that if something is natural, it must be safe?

I have the following advice for people who spout the "It's natural, it must be safe, etc." line:

"Try natural dentistry. The next time you have a root canal job, don't let the dentist use that non-organic anaesthetic on you!"

gethen
2003-Sep-27, 01:29 AM
Its good for you because they can pronounce it.
Now how can you argue with that logic? :-P.

Yeah, I've actually heard so-called authorities tell people not to buy anything with an ingredient they can't pronounce on the label. So, how do you pronounce "ginko biloba," or "ginko bibola," or whatever the heck the stuff is? Why are chemical names more difficult to say than the names of foreign-produced herbs?

tuffel999
2003-Sep-27, 02:29 AM
Here is a fun one. St. John's Wort inactivates most forms of the birth control pill and most people for some reason don't know this. So ladies be aware.

beskeptical
2003-Sep-27, 02:54 AM
Chiming in as one who voted 'other'.....

Just because it is natural, herbal, or prescribed does not tell you if it is good, bad, works, or doesn't.

Buyer beware is true for western medicine as well as the naturopathic stuff.

Lack of regulation of the content of herbal products is a serious problem.

But some research on some of the products is positive. So I wouldn't automatically write it off. I wouldn't automatically accept the marketing pitches either. For some reason people tend to think there is marketing money behind the pharmaceutical company products but not behind the herbal manufacturing products. :roll:

TriangleMan
2003-Sep-27, 04:12 PM
I always like to bring up that coffee is "all-natural" and "herbal" yet for some reason most health food advocates despise the stuff.

My speculation: it's because coffee is popular. If it wasn't you'd see health food devotees going on about how it 'energizes' you and so forth. (and charging $8 for a small bottle) :P

Kaptain K
2003-Sep-27, 04:33 PM
Let's see - Natural. As opposed to what? Supernatural? :-?

I have been known to use cannabis sativa (consumes 47 times its weight in excess reality tm)

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Sep-27, 04:54 PM
Heck, agent orange is natural. Everything is. Gasoline, tar, soot, anti-biotics all of it. "Natural" is misleading.

tuffel999
2003-Sep-27, 05:00 PM
Errr...not all antibiotics are natural(also the definiton of antibiotic can be misleading). Some have natural analogs, some are natural but many of the new ones are synthesized completly in the lab from chemical stock. These antibiotics also tend ot have worse side effects though since they were never processed in a living system.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Sep-27, 05:09 PM
Yes, but where do those chemicals come from? More chemicals? Where do those come from?

Eventually, you're going to get to an origional ingredient, and it's not going to be synthetic, unless it's made of synthetic elements. And even those are made from hitting natural elements together.

But if you mean they aren't directly "natural," you are absolutely correct. I'm just trying to say that the definition of "natural" isn't clearly defined.

tuffel999
2003-Sep-27, 05:17 PM
Well in that case everthing is natural :D
But that really isn't the point. The 'natural' remedies and drugs are normally untested extracts that contain a wide array of compounds that may or may not help and have undergone minmal processing and have not undergone evaluation by a governing body(FDA in the states). In order to sell a synthetic chemical product such as an antibiotic it has to go through huge testing requirements to ensure safety while natural remedies don't. That is where the danger sneaks in is that there is no way to tell what the effects of the natural remedy may be. It could be good, bad, or ugly but you don't know since it has been properly evaluated. I say let people use all the natural products they want. If they die from the product or a dangerous interaction that is there responsibility since they were using an nonendorsed product that lacked the proper certification.

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Sep-27, 05:50 PM
True. Also, even with the same brand of natural remedies, the active percentage of active ingredients vary. Most are about as useful as placebos since trying to get the right dosage is absolutely impossible.

Donnie B.
2003-Sep-27, 06:15 PM
I figure if it doesn't require FDA approval, it must not do anything.
Maybe you intended this as a joke, but if not, it's a dangerous misconception.

A number of herbal remedies are quite active biologically. The reason they're not under FDA control is political, not scientific.

Musashi
2003-Sep-27, 06:29 PM
I think what Wedgebert meant is that they don't do anything good. Another way he could have said it is, 'If they don't require FDA approval, there is no point in taking them.'

beskeptical
2003-Sep-28, 05:14 AM
Errr...not all antibiotics are natural(also the definiton of antibiotic can be misleading). Some have natural analogs, some are natural but many of the new ones are synthesized completly in the lab from chemical stock. These antibiotics also tend ot have worse side effects though since they were never processed in a living system.Excuse me? On what evidence do you base this claim? As a health care provider who prescribes antibiotics, I can tell you that there is substantial evidence that your statement is incorrect.

But, I am confused since your subsequent post seemed to say the opposite.

Actually, except for the questionable content of unregulated dietary supplements as they are referred to to get around FDA regulation, some 'natural' products have been tested in reliable research settings.

And, some products that have received FDA approval have been recalled after being released on the market.

It isn't wise to assume new medical products are safe until they have been on the market long enough to complete testing. New drugs are better reserved for the patients who haven't responded to older drugs unless there are no alternatives.

When a drug reaches the marketplace, it has been tested on a few hundred to a few thousand people. If the rate of severe side effects are 1 per 100,000 they do not show up until the drug is released.

The guiding principle for all drugs, natural or not, is do the benefits out weigh the risks and costs? And reliable research is the way to determine that equation.

tuffel999
2003-Sep-28, 09:29 PM
That which statement is wrong. Approximately 75% of antibiotics are natural(most coming from Streptomyces). Many of the remaining 25% are semisynthetic analogs and some are totally synthetic (for time sake I will lump the semisynthetic with the synthetic). Not all but many synthetic antibiotics have some rather nasty side effects and are drugs of last resort. The reason I said tha they are worse side effect wise since they weren't synthesized in vivo was becasue few originisms synthesize compounds that are so toxic in nature as some of the wonderful synthetic antibiotics we have developed. Some do but it doesn't happen that often. Humans on the other hand aren't that great at knowing exactly what this chemical is going to do in the wild (remeber these organisms have evolved in the presence of these compounds so the yhave tempered their toxicity so that they are not affected themselves) and then we run into all kinds of messy issues. Hey DDT kills bugs dead but uh oh it causes bald eagles to die from weak egg structure oops.
To name a few of the synthetic/semi that are particularly nasty:
Dapsone(sulfones in general), Ethambutol, Chloramphenicol, Clindamycin to name a few of the nasty ones. I can come up with more if I really think or I dig through my pharmacology texts :wink:

tuffel999
2003-Sep-28, 10:00 PM
In reponse ot the rest of the post. Sure things get recalled after they have been approved all the time. It happens when better data becomes available. So that's life in science when better data comes along you have to reevaluate your original comclusion. I just find it telling that most of the so called natural remedies have never been approved by the FDA and a few have been banned or threatened (Ephedra anyone). As far as FDA approved drugs I wonder how many drugs are still in use now that would never have passed the current testing requirments. I would venture to say quite a few. Personally i hate taking any kind of medication. I am horrible about going to the doctor but I also don't get sick that often or if I do it never seems to be quite as bad when I do get sick maybe because I actually have an immune system unlike any people who panic kand run to the doctor every week. If you are never exposed to anything you never develop any resistancies. I mean sure i could go to the doctor for the flu also and get a freaking antibiotic simply because it will make me feel better psycologically (because the doctor gave me the magic pill I needed so bad) but it isn't going ot help me recover any faster and it will just contribute more to antibiotic resistant bacterial strains.

Humphrey
2003-Sep-28, 10:14 PM
My universitie's student health center atually does hagve some brains in giving out anti-biotics.

I had the flu once (yes i get the flu shot every year, but with dozens of strains, it wont work every time) and i went to the center to just get checked out. They said right out that they will not give anti-biotics because it wouldn't work. I smiled and said "i am glad". I was hoping they wouldn't.

So what shoudl we do? Should we pull all hebal remedies off the market and make them go throught testing? OR should we just have them put labels on saying all known sideeffects and drug interactions?

The Supreme Canuck
2003-Sep-28, 10:33 PM
Well if we want these things to be taken seriously, they need to be tested. If they don't work or are dangerous, pull 'em. If they work, regulate the actuve ingredients and list the percentages.

beskeptical
2003-Sep-29, 06:05 AM
Not to bore everyone but....
Med Clin North Am. 2001 Jan;85(1):149-85.
Antibiotic side effects.

Cunha BA.

State University of New York School of Medicine, Stony Brook, USA.

Antibiotic side effects are approached best from an individual agent perspective rather than from a class-related standpoint. As this article indicates, with the exception of drug fevers and drug rashes, most antibiotic side effects are related to individual agents and not class side effects. Clinicians should view antimicrobial side effects as related to each organ system and be aware that more often a nonmicrobial medication is the explanation for the drug side effect rather than the antimicrobial. Nonantimicrobial medications are the most common cause of drug fever; among antimicrobials, beta-lactams and sulfonamides are the most common causes of drug-induced fevers. Antimicrobial side effects have important implications for the patient, legal and economic implications for the hospital, and medicolegal implications for the physician. Antibiotic side effects that prolong hospitalization in today's managed care environment have important economic implications. Clinicians should be familiar with the most common side effects of the most frequently used antimicrobials, to minimize the potential of having adverse reactions occur in patients. Most adverse events related to antimicrobials are reversible rapidly on cessation of the medication. Irreversible toxicities include aminoglycoside-induced ototoxicity, Stevens-Johnson syndrome, and toxicity secondary to nitrofurantoin. The most common acute fatal drug reactions include hypersensitivity reactions resulting in anaphylaxis or the Stevens-Johnson syndrome and fatal hepatic necrosis secondary to trovafloxacin. Clinicians should eliminate the use of drugs associated with chronic or fatal toxicities because multiple therapeutic alternatives exist for virtually every potential infection.

Publication Types:
Review
Review, Tutorial

PMID: 11190350 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE] (emphasis mine)
Tuffel, this is one of thousands of references I can find you supporting my statement that your generalization on antibiotic side effects was not correct.

And as to new drugs on the market, it isn't exactly that better data comes along, though technically you could say that. The point is the problem of population size in the initial test groups of most drugs pre-market is an inherent problem. In other words, it is an expected problem and is always taken into account by a good medical provider.

beskeptical
2003-Sep-29, 06:20 AM
My universitie's student health center atually does hagve some brains in giving out anti-biotics.

I had the flu once (yes i get the flu shot every year, but with dozens of strains, it wont work every time)
Just a teensy nitpick here because you have the correct idea....There are over 200 known organisms that cause upper respiratory infections. The flu vaccine only works against the influenza virus, not the 199 other things. Every year the flu vaccine contains the 3 strains most likely to circulate. That has in the past covered 90% or more of the strains that did circulate so we expect the same to be true each year.

And as long as I am at it I will dispell the other most common myths about the flu.

I already said it is respiratory, it isn't what folks refer to as the 'stomach flu'.

It kills more than 20,000 people in the US alone every year. 90% of those in most years are over 65 years old. But that leaves 2,000 deaths a year in younger persons and some of them every year were healthy prior to getting the flu.

The flu shots don't give you the flu and placebo controlled studies showed the shots almost never make you feel bad. Most of the time people think their flu shot made them ill it is because they caught one of the other 199 things near the time of their shot. Flu shots are given in the peak season for respiratory infections.


So what shoudl we do? Should we pull all hebal remedies off the market and make them go throught testing? OR should we just have them put labels on saying all known sideeffects and drug interactions?
Well, at least we should look for good research backing up the claims rather than supposed 'common knowledge' or 'ancient wisdom'.

tuffel999
2003-Sep-29, 02:54 PM
Tuffel, this is one of thousands of references I can find you supporting my statement that your generalization on antibiotic side effects was not correct.

See here is the problem I had to make a generalization otherwise my post would have dozens of pages long and boring to boot. I would have to go into detailed explanations on how antibiotics work if they are helicase targeting, ribosomal targeting, cell wall synthesis inhibitors, or so on and so forth. Then go into why and how antibiotics can cause a toxic action. Some of the reasons not directly linked to the antibiotic, some due to products of the antibiotic breakdown, some because if you kill certain bacteria their cell lysis is toxic to humans on its own, and still others as direct action against the person taking them. Bottom line is a person suffering from the side effects doesn't give a dead rats you know what why they are having the reaction they just care that they are having these toxic side effects. When you have to make generalizations you almost always group something where it doesn't belong.

As far as your refrence goes it isn't all that clear to me what it is trying to say since it contradicts itself. First it says "most antibiotic side effects are related to individual agents and not class side effects" then it says "among antimicrobials, beta-lactams and sulfonamides are the most common causes of drug-induced fevers" which are classes of antibiotics. So it goes and makes generalizations as well. Now it is true there are good and bad antibiotics in each class but certain classes of antibiotics have general properties that make them less acceptable for common use due to these toxicities. I listed specific antibiotics in my follow up so you would have an idea of the type agents I was talking about that are particularly toxic and are synthetic. Now if you can throw me a listing of synthetic vs. naturally derived antibiotics and their therapeutic index that clearly shows that a higher percentage of natural anibiotics are highly toxic then; I will definately read it and check it out until then I have to go with what was taught to me in school since i haven't seen data contradicting it yet. As I have always heard in lab 'show me the data'. (Actually PM me the data so we don't bore everyone to death.) :D

tuffel999
2003-Sep-29, 03:01 PM
P.S.- I hope you weren't taking this personally, it isn't meant that way. I just would like to see the data. The data I received was probably could have been less than complete as it was not a in real table form that leant it to easy interpretation so I could be wrong but I haven't seen a definative form of explaniation the other way yet either.

kucharek
2003-Sep-29, 03:03 PM
Some 18-year-old in the east of Germany last week tried to apply for the Darwin award. He brewed some tea from Angel's Trumpet and started to behave strange. He cut himself off his tongue and the part you need to breed. According to the doctor, there was nothing left that could be stiched on again.

Ouch!

beskeptical
2003-Sep-29, 07:48 PM
Tuffel, this is one of thousands of references I can find you supporting my statement that your generalization on antibiotic side effects was not correct.

............As far as your refrence goes it isn't all that clear to me what it is trying to say since it contradicts itself. First it says "most antibiotic side effects are related to individual agents and not class side effects" then it says "among antimicrobials, beta-lactams and sulfonamides are the most common causes of drug-induced fevers" which are classes of antibiotics. The quote is, "with the exception of drug fevers and drug rashes," so it isn't contradicting itself.


I listed specific antibiotics in my follow up so you would have an idea of the type agents I was talking about that are particularly toxic and are synthetic. Now if you can throw me a listing of synthetic vs. naturally derived antibiotics and their therapeutic index that clearly shows that a higher percentage of natural anibiotics are highly toxic then; I will definately read it and check it out until then I have to go with what was taught to me in school since i haven't seen data contradicting it yet. As I have always heard in lab 'show me the data'. .... :D If you can't find a resource supporting your claim, perhaps your claim is wrong. Surely if it is a correct generalization it should be mentioned in some antibiotic reference.

My point is, to claim something is natural vs unnatural and then to claim that affects the human body differently on that basis alone is a false premise.

I don't take this personally at all, except it's my mission to dispell these kind of common myths. :wink:

mike alexander
2003-Sep-29, 09:23 PM
Well, THIS topic isn't very provocative, is it? 8)

There's as much psychology as pharmacology here. Part of it, I am sure, is reaction to the perception that large drug companies make huge profits on the backs of the diseased, and somehow that doesn't seem fair. There must be an 'alternative way' to get the same results without spending the bucks.

First, many drug companies do make huge profits. They also reinvest large amounts in new research and development. But the fact remains: even after the reinvestment many do make huge profits. This bugs a lot of people.

The romantic fallacy. 'Natural' is better. This also seems to tie in with everything from shamanistic practice to the works of Sixpack Chopra and Yogi Weill.

Nobody knows what 'natural' is, but like pornography they recognize it when they see it. My old friend Chuck used to say the label should read "contains no transuranic elements". Chemicals that Nature makes are good, but chemicals humans make are bad; I suspect lingering vestiges of vitalism.

Nobody knows how drugs act, so they can make up anything they want, from balanced humors to flows of chi. Ask most consumers what a receptor is and you'll probably get an answer involving football.

Nobody has any idea of dose, theraputic range, first pass effect, enzyme induction, phenotypes, clearance, or half a hundred other things I could dredge up if I tried. But they know 'good' and 'bad' drugs.

The same people who wouldn't even think of trying to repair their defective TV set have no problem doing the most stupid things with the stuff they toss into their bodies.

Sometimes, sometimes the experts know what they are talking about.

tuffel999
2003-Sep-30, 12:11 AM
Finally I was able to find my lecture notes on this subject. I had to dig through a lot of stuff to find this (found some other stuff I was looking for so that was good). It was during a lecture on SJS. The direct question was asked about SJS and synthetic sulfa based antibiotics. The lecturer said that the synthetic sulfa drugs showed a higher toxicity and a more direct correlation to SJS and they should be avoided unless neccesary since other less toxic options were available. This was actually mentioned in your article. So it was presented in a fashion that included the entire class of sulfa based antibiotics. So my question is is this incorrect? That is all I have. It was from one lecture on sulfa based antibiotics. I also have qunolines with a ? next to it(it is covered in the paper below as well). Anyway here is the paper passed out with the lecture you shouldn't have any problem getting it. If you do let me know and I can get it in a digital form.
Medication Use And The Risk Of Stevens-Johnson Syndrome Or
Toxic Epidermal Necrolysis
N Engl J Med 1996 Apr 4;334(14):922

tuffel999
2003-Sep-30, 12:25 AM
One other thing I am all for using antibiotics and other drugs. This hasn't been some sort of anti medicine rant I just am for responsible use of antibiotics. Mainly because the irresponsible use of anibiotics to date has painted us into a very dangerous corner.

beskeptical
2003-Sep-30, 06:41 AM
One other thing I am all for using antibiotics and other drugs. This hasn't been some sort of anti medicine rant I just am for responsible use of antibiotics. Mainly because the irresponsible use of anibiotics to date has painted us into a very dangerous corner.Oh no, I didn't take it that way at all.

As to the above, it sounds to me like you may have taken a comment meant only to refer to sulfa based drugs and perhaps attributed the reason to "synthetic" when maybe that was not the key factor.

A quick google for a good description of SJS turned up this from emedicine.com:

SJS is an immune-complex–mediated hypersensitivity disorder that may be caused by many drugs, viral infections, and malignancies. Cocaine recently has been added to the list of drugs capable of producing the syndrome. In up to half of cases, no specific etiology has been identified.

I know of no research that attributes SJS to 'synthetic' products specifically.

tuffel999
2003-Sep-30, 05:50 PM
As to the above, it sounds to me like you may have taken a comment meant only to refer to sulfa based drugs and perhaps attributed the reason to "synthetic" when maybe that was not the key factor.

That certainly maybe the case it was a while ago it is just one of those things that stuck in my mind after hearing it during the lecture, in fact my notes from the lecture are not extremly comprehensive. In light of the fact that I only have that one paper and set of lecture notes I call uncle. :oops:

beskeptical
2003-Sep-30, 07:34 PM
As to the above, it sounds to me like you may have taken a comment meant only to refer to sulfa based drugs and perhaps attributed the reason to "synthetic" when maybe that was not the key factor.

That certainly maybe the case it was a while ago it is just one of those things that stuck in my mind after hearing it during the lecture, in fact my notes from the lecture are not extremly comprehensive. In light of the fact that I only have that one paper and set of lecture notes I call uncle. :oops:Hooray!!! :D

Not about the uncle thing. Sometimes when you discuss stuff with folks they get annoyed rather than trying to learn something new. I am often on the learning end. There is nothing to be embarassed about. I think it is a good thing when I learn something new. And, I often learn it when someone disagrees. I consider it an opportunity to learn or teach.

alanr1
2005-Nov-20, 11:28 AM
Hi everyone,
Looking nice to see the discussion related to the most important topic antibiotic.Lots of antibiotics available now .Which one is best for us the problem for the users .Gentamicin injections (http://www.drugdelivery.ca/s3536-s-GENTAMICIN.aspx)are also the good antibiotics.But important thing is the side effects for the medication.We have to take it before taking it.

genebujold
2005-Nov-20, 08:00 PM
Sadly, I could not answer the poll as I take both.

There's a lot of disinformation about herbal "foods" (the title of this poll), herbal/natural "remedies" (the poll's question), and regular foods, OTC remedies, and prescription medicines.

If anyone believes that OTC and prescription medicines are "safe when used as directed" then you haven't read the long list of warnings and precautions.

About the safest of the bunch are "organic foods," as they're indeed all-natural, non-GM foods free from pesticides and herbicides.

These are already regulated by the organization that owns the "organic" label, and so need no further regulation.

If herbal/natural remedies need further regulation due to known measured and tested side effects exceeding the limits of OTC meds, then they should be regulated.

Much of the fluff, however, is that far less than 1% of anything found in a health food store will cause injury, harm, or death at any rate exceeding OTC meds when, of course, used as directed.

Kesh
2005-Nov-20, 08:37 PM
My favorite was a woman I once worked with who took these Chinese herbal pills that were supposed to "cleanse the bowels" for her health. When I asked how it worked, she mentioned you take one of those pills per day... along with drinking a quart of water.

I was going to point out that the water was more likely to be cleansing her bowels without the pills, but she was so deep into such things it wouldn't have helped. And I still had to work with her. :p

Big Brother Dunk
2005-Nov-21, 06:33 AM
I don't take herbal remedies except for one, I do take glucosamine for my knees. My doctor suggested I try it and it seemed to work very well for me.

Gillianren
2005-Nov-21, 06:36 AM
That's the one I take, too. However, I'm also currently on Zoloft (hopefully not for much longer; I think it's responsible for my nausea and my nightmares), because herbal remedies, in that particular case, are definitely not as helpful as prescription drugs. (At least, once you figure out which prescription is the one that works for you.)

jkmccrann
2005-Nov-29, 09:08 AM
I think this is a somewhat misleading question to ask. I answered that I would use herbal or natural remedies, but I was thinking along the lines of any remedy with a natural or herbal component, rather than something that is purely natural and hasn't undergone any testing to establish its credentials.

For instance, with the current flap about avian flu, would anyone on here take Tamiflu if there were to be a pandemic? I would, and yet Tamiflu is the result of a 10-step process which begins with the extraction of shikimic acid from a rare spice, 'star anise'. That to me gives something like Tamiflu a recognisable natural component. It is not a wholly synthetic substance created by mixing various chemicals together.

Obviously during the 10 step process in Tamiflu's production there are going to be synthetic substances introduced into the process, but no matter the dilution of the original shikimic acid in Tamiflu's eventual production, for me given its natural base it retains a recognisable natural origin and hence for me qualifies as a `natural' remedy.

I mean, a lot of the herbal remedies that are advertised have also gone through some degree of dilution but they still qualify as herbal remedies, so what's the difference?

As an aside, I had looked at this thread a couple of months ago and contemplated making this point, but given the age of the thread decided to wait until I had a current example to make, so I was pleasantly surprised to see this thread bumped current by alanr1 after a 2 year hiatus.

hehehehe :)

farmerjumperdon
2005-Nov-29, 06:40 PM
Some 18-year-old in the east of Germany last week tried to apply for the Darwin award. He brewed some tea from Angel's Trumpet and started to behave strange. He cut himself off his tongue and the part you need to breed. According to the doctor, there was nothing left that could be stiched on again.

Ouch!

YYYYYYYYYYYOOOOOOOOOOOOOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!!!

I'm squirming just reading it.

And wondering if that is a microbial side effect or a an antimicrobial side effect.

farmerjumperdon
2005-Nov-29, 06:45 PM
My favorite was a woman I once worked with who took these Chinese herbal pills that were supposed to "cleanse the bowels" for her health. When I asked how it worked, she mentioned you take one of those pills per day... along with drinking a quart of water.

I was going to point out that the water was more likely to be cleansing her bowels without the pills, but she was so deep into such things it wouldn't have helped. And I still had to work with her. :p

Kind of like the diet that works only if you stick to some certain exercise regimen. No kidding.

I've got a car that uses almost no fuel. It's been parked for 10 years.

LurchGS
2005-Nov-29, 07:02 PM
Kind of like the diet that works only if you stick to some certain exercise regimen. No kidding.

I've got a car that uses almost no fuel. It's been parked for 10 years.

hot dog! you willing to sell it?

I'll trade you for my grandmother - she doesn't eat anything or say much, either...

To the growing list of prescription meds I take (still far fewer than my wife, who's three years younger), I have been taking glucosamine for the past two years. It (or something, but I don't know what else it might be) has made a significant difference in my ankles and knees - and wrists. (I've broken each ankle 3-5 times, and I type a LOT - post traumatic arthritis in ankles and knees and whatever was causing the pain in my hands/wrists)

does that mean I think all 'herbal remedies' are good, or even effective? Nope. i wouldn't even have tried glucosamine if my mother hadn't suggested it (she takes it for similar reasons and noted apparent improvement)

(I qualify my results because they are subjective - no testing or anything to show that the cartilage pads actually HAVE improved. For all I know, glucosamine is just a really good arthritis-specific pain medication and my feet will fall off next week)