Posts by The BigYin

Re: yawn

Umm....belladonna. Just one example.

Can treat many things from muscle cramps, motion sickness and even nerve gas inhalation! I shit you not.

But wait, did I just advocate for some alt-med hippy bullshit? No, I didn't because the extracted compounds have been extracted, understood and tested rigorously. And yes, of course, it's been used in various tinctures by herbalists for centuries, but that does not validate the entire cannon of herbalism.

You are quite correct, we need to wait for more evidence; but it's definitely in the "curious" spectrum of things and whilst the extracted compound might not work on a human, something closely related might.

Re: Bad news for endangered species

Minor typo: I said "Some alt-med is bullshit".

What I meant to say was: "Most alt-med is bullshit".

Re: Bad news for endangered species

"My point is more about aggressive dismissal such as the kind you are showing, rather then keeping an open mind and investigating with modern techniques."

I have an open mind, just not so open that my brains fall out. Some alt-med is bullshit and should be dismissed as such. It's the same with many things, some ideas are just so outlandish that they can and should be ignored. Until, of course, actual evidence shows up (see below).

"If uneducated camel riders realised that rubbing the mould from saddles onto their sores helped, just because it was not tested in a scientific way doesn't make it quackery."

That makes it anecdote. When people start to claim that it'll cure cancer or whatever (and that does happen) that makes it quackery. When the claims that underpin the "cure" seem to be at odds with the general understanding of science that that too is probably quackery until proven otherwise (see below) .

In your above example two questions arise. Is is the mould or the rubbing? If one of the other, why? Let's say it's the mould. What are the active compounds? Why do they work? Can they be purified/synthesised? Are there other chemicals that might do something similar? What are the risks? Can it cause infection or an allergic reaction? Answer all that and not only will you have a range of treatments for saddle sore, but probably all sorts of leisons. And that is why we need the evidence. Not hearsay.

"One form of quackery IMHO is the absolute belief that only one method, or thing is right (kinda like religion) which personally I think science isn't about."

But there is only one method, and it is brutally simple: does the evidence support the theory? End of discussion. Actual science requires evidence, testable theories etc. And, of course, science will change its mind when new evidence arises. Unlike religion. Science is "right" because it has the evidence to back it up. It even has the evidence to back-up its evidence! That's all that matters. Evidence.

"In 100 years time who knows they might be laughing at your comments and techniques the same way as you are doing of others!"

Maybe. And you know what? We'll have the evidence for why things changed. But I can guarantee you that we will still have drugs companies and we will not be inserting magic quantum crystals up our butts. Or any other quack alt-med you care to pick.

And one final point. Just because one extract from one herb that happens to be used in Traditional Chinese Medicine does not validate the entirety of Traditional Chinese Medicine or any other ingredients they may happen to use. Why? Because there is not evidence. And when there is evidence we will no longer call it "Traditional Chinese Medicine" but just "medicine".

It really is that simple.

I think @NomNomNom is a semi-professional troll on these boards. Checking their history, most of their comments seem to be garbage along these lines.

I wouldn't take it to heart.

Re: Turmeric has few side effects

I doubt it will be. It'll be just like other plant extracts. Once they figure out how it works, other compounds will be developed that do the things they want, and don't do the things they don't want (also, if it needs delivered intravenously it'll probably need purified). A bit like Aspirin was (see earlier comments).

And if it turns out that turmeric is the shizzle as it is and delivery via a good curry is the way to go, do you really think a doctor won't simply tell you that? There's a good reason we still do things like gargle salt water rather than god-knows what; it's safe, cheap and works. Compared to that, treatment with a drug is just too much bother and will only be done if the problem doesn't shift.

@Captain

Aye, sorry about that. I over simplified things for the moon-unit brigade who seem to be living in fear of the Lizard People (or whatever the latest conspiracy theory is, I can never keep up).

You more complete explanation is a great example of why evidence-based medicine works. "This does a thing we like, but also something we don't. Can we make it better?" But, of course, the better item is "artificial" and clearly a plot by the Lizard People to hide the Truth of the Ancients from us! Or whatever.

Re: The Main Difference

I suggest you go do some reading, the placebo may not be as all powerful as it seems.

Here's a good starting point: http://www.skepdic.com/placebo.html (then there's always Wikipedia)

Re: Turmeric has few side effects

And this is all good news because we know it's the curcumin up to something and the boffins will be boffing away at it like billy-o figuring out how it works, how best to delivers it, what variations might be good for other things etc etc.

I would urge caution though. Any benefits delivered by the curcumin in the turmeric are likely to be offset by the sedentary lifestyle caused by becoming terrified of leaving the khazi. :)

Re: Why does "Medicine" use "Synthetics" instead of direct extracts?

"The "medical industry" has no financial interest in a cure, only in money."

The computer industry has no financial interest in computing, only in money.

The car industry has no financial interest in driving, only in money.

The book industry has no financial interest in literature, only in money.

Those three statements, along with yours, are utter crap. The medical industry is interested in money. Of course it is. It's a business! And how do they make money? By providing drugs and treatments that work! If Company A has a treatment that only alleviates symptoms, Company B will still be trying to cure the problem because it can still make money by offering a better treatment than Company A.

There are problems with the medical industry, yes (e.g. selective publishing of results to push new drugs through) but to dismiss the entire thing, along with all the advances that have been made, is crass stupidity of the absolute highest order.

"you can patent the PROCESS for extracting the active ingredient if it has never been done before or if there is a special technique required."

And....so what? Any time some new process is created from some new thing it is almost certainly going to get patented to protect the investment (I can think of exceptions which rely on trade secret instead). Why should chemical plants/processes be any different to any other feat of design/engineering?

Oh wait, It's the Intergalactic Drug Cartel of the Lizard People; isn't it?

"You will find that the efficacy of the synthetics may not even be as good as the natural extracts are."

Citation, please.

The synthetic is a pure for of the natural compound. It will be exceedingly potent simply because it is pure. Where one may observe a difference with the natural compounds is because they are not pure and do not get delivered isolation; they're a cocktail and it might be that it is the cocktail which is the important bit (maybe some other compound is acting a bit like a catalyst)

Also consider the fact that the compound might occur naturally in a form that renders it ineffective or lethal (e.g. can't be injected safely). It is thus processed and delivered in a suitable fashion.

"Also note that the chemical formulation of many drugs closely resemble that of the natural extract but are usually shifted; stereo isomers or "mirror images" of the natural material for no other reason that they can be patented."

Citation, please. Especially for that isomers statement. Depending on the drug and how it interacts, an isomer of the natural compound could be ineffective or downright dangerous.

I'd also like you to consider this: Company A gets a chemical from a plant, changes it slightly, patents it and expects to make billions. Y'know what Company B does? Just gets it from the feckin' plant! Simple! Company A is now up a certain creek and has a major competitor looking into greenhouses; we benefit from that competition.

Re: Bad news for endangered species

"The real question though, is whether real acupuncture and / or placebo acupuncture are better than no acupuncture at all"

No it isn't. Any intervention will have an effect, either placebo or nocebo. Acupuncture is an intervention and will have an effect. Due to how acupuncture is usually presented, it will probably be placebo. Even talking to someone has an effect. Cheer them up, they feel better; "Laughter is the best medicine" as they say.

This does not mean that you can speak magic words that heal people. It's the placebo effect again!

"If they ARE better than no acupuncture"

See above. They would have to be better than placebo. Also, we'd have to have some idea what was going on. It's not going to be chi, chakras or any of that. That is all bullshit.

"find out by what mechanism the acupuncture IS working"

It probably isn't, it's probably placebo.

"instead of ignoring it (or calling it bullshit) because it isn't better than a placebo"

It claims to operate by a mechanism that is unknown to modern science, does not seem to have a theoretical model which can be tested and has been shown to be no better than a placebo. Looks like bullshit, smells like bullshit and you know what? It's probably bullshit.

Re: No big shock really

This is what a lot of companies already do. They also discount a lot of the moon-unit "treatments" (like crystal healing etc) as they usually contravene major parts of modern scientific knowledge, or have been sown to fail in previous studies (actual, proper studies; not shams conducted by the moon-unit brigade).

Re: The Main Difference

"I guess there's no money in studying why and how some people are curing themselves just by thinking that they're being cured, and finding ways to replicate that consciously."

So how do you explain the studies into the placebo effect then? And the nocebo. And the fact it doesn't always work - the placebo effect isn't going to mend your broken bones for example.

The reason drugs are expected to exceed the placebo effect is so that we can be sure the drug actually does something. That the drug, in and of itself, made a difference. That means getting over the "noise" of the placebo effect.

You posts really do make you sound like a conspiracy nut.

Company 1 : We have a thing that resolves the symptoms. We'll make beeeeeellions!

Company 2 : We have a thing that fixes the actual problem. We'll make beeeeeellions!

Company 1: Rats.

And that, in a nutshell, is how it works. No need for nutty "Big Pharma" conspiracy theories. If there is collusion, we have laws to deal with that. They may not be great and they should maybe be wielded a bit more often, but that is a general societal issue to do with greed, short-termism and spineless politicos.

Even if it did come from a basic plant, the active ingredient would still require refinement because the dose the plant can give is probably rather small. Even if the plant did give a high enough dose, it would still need refinement because of all the potential contaminants. Even if the active ingredient was delivered in a pure enough form, it would still be studied as it could lead to a new class of drugs. So what I'm saying is, they'd still make it and they'd still profit from it.

For example: acetylsalicylic acid. You can get that from willow bark easily enough and yet we still get tablets of the stuff don't we?

Or, you know, maybe there really is a conspiracy all run by the Lizard People and I am just a shill for them. They don't want you to know, man, they don't want you to know!

Re: Bad news for endangered species

There is no such thing as "Western medicine" or "Eastern medicine" or whatever, there is simply "evidence-based medicine" and "bullshit".

"acupuncture, pressure puncture are just a few that have already been adopted by western medicine."

Well, apart from the fact that evidence-based medicine has shown "real" acupuncture to be no better than placebo acupuncture. i.e. it's bullshit. For certain ailments it may be possible to get a greater than placebo effect, but it will still have nothing to do with re-aligning chakras or restoring chi flow or whatever. It'll be because of an actual physiological response that and be studied, understood and then used with actual, real, evidence-based knowledge.

"these traditional medicines have had thousands of years of human testing."

Oh wow, so they had properly conducted double-blind trials did they? Wrote it all up in peer reviewed journals? Eventually figured out the mechanism by which the active ingredients worked (and a mechanism that doesn't contradict the rest of known science)? Excuse me if I call crap on their "testing". Or do you still drill a hole in your head when you are ill to release the demons? That had years of human testing too.

"So rather then dismissing traditional medicines as quackery, wouldn't it be better to adopt it as actual medicine and ensure that it undergoes the same rigorous testing?"

No, it wouldn't. For the simple reason that after it has been studied, shown to work in a proper tests/trials, been refined etc we tend to just call it MEDICINE.

Re: No big shock really

All? Far from it.

Those that have been shown to have an effect in a properly conducted double-blind trial should be investigated (i.e. greater than placebo). There rest should be ignored.

The amount of support fake medicine gets (even from our own NHS) is depressing.

Re: No big shock really

"Chinese medicine benefits from thousands of years of experimentation!"

Really? Really, really? Dried seahorse has evidence to support its use? Which journal was that published in? And tiger bits etc?

I think you meant to say "Chinese medicine benefits from thousands of years of random quackery!"

Re: The Main Difference

It's simply evidence based medicine Vs bullshit. And usually bullshit that is only going to affect your wallet.

The placebo is strong in this one. Although to be fair, unlike a lot of other alternative hippy-crap, herbalism at least has a fighting chance of delivering an active compound(s).

Got a headache? Chew on some willow bark. Which we still do today. Except we've taken the active compound, figured out how to synthesise it and now deliver it in handy pill form. Much easier than dragging a small forest around with you. :)

Re: Kind of ironic

Not really.

Plants are known to contain various organic compounds and it is fairly common practice to extract these from plants, test them and set about synthesising the ones that work in much greater quantities and purity.

The big advantage here is that the resulting compounds are actually known to work (we may even know how they work) and have a supporting body of evidence to prove it. It's not based on anecdote and hearsay, which is all you generally have for herbalism.

Also note, this plant was used to treat auto-immune problems not pancreatic cancer.

@AC Re: Mine does this, and has done since day one

FFS, I wish people would shut the hell up about "Modem mode" as if it was the greatest thing since sliced bread. It's still going to be running, it's still going to be making a noise, it's still going to be drawing power and it's still going to shit it's little pants because it it UTTER CRAP!

I do not want to use their garbage, I want to connect my own modem/router. Is there some technical reason (and I do mean "technical", not "business") that VM do not allow this?

Re: Shock news!

And how much did you pay for this product?

So you want something for free, that does exactly what you want but don't think you should inform the devs (bar ranting randomly on unconnected forums) Yes....good luck with that.

Re: Shock news!

If it is so important to you, I take it you have involved with Mozilla and are assisting them (either with code, documentation, funding or whatever) to make it a reality.

Shock news!

Software tool does not do what user wants.

User does not use software tool.

More exciting revelations next week!