Arthritis

[pennib]

Hello everyone,

As the subject says I am having problems with arthritis in my left hand(knuckles and finger joints). Just wondered whether anyone had any suggestions that might help. I am 79 years old.

Alan

[andreslr6]

:suspicious Fry:

Anyways. I don't know about arthritis, but I do get a lot of pain when I'm not careful with the temperature. My knees and wrists hurt a lot, specially when I eat a lot of meat, so the only recommendation I can give is always warm up before playing, and after you're finished playing put on some gloves to cool down slowly and to protect your hands from an abrupt temperature change or exposure which can even result in tendonitis. And, most importantly, why not ask a doctor/therapist instead?

[lloyd_cdb]

No offense, but age carries it's benefits and weaknesses.  If you are expecting to play pieces that are increasingly complex, you might need to change your expectations.  If you are recently picking up the piano, age can contribute more to that issue.  Doctors are usually the best way to address this though.  I would take every suggestion with a grain of salt.

[cjp_piano]

Seems like more of a health question. I research natural health as a hobby. For arthritis, off the top of my head: minerals, glucosomine, chondroitin, black cherry and pineapple juices, raw apple cider vinegar, oregano oil, and ginger. Here, let me get you a link:

https://www.naturalnews.com/023045_arthritis_pain_tea.html

[iansinclair]

Yeah, been there, done that... (for reference, I'm almost 71 and have arthritis)

Warmth:  I usually wear a pair of wrist warmers.  I tried fingerless gloves, but they get in the way very subtly, but aren't good.  I warm up slowly with some easy pieces first, then practice what needs practicing, then ease back down with more easier stuff.

If your hands are decidedly cold, warm them up in a basin of nice warm water before you play -- but make sure to dry them quickly, or they will get colder faster!

Medication:  It is essential that if you plan to take any sort of medication other than food, ANYTHING other than food, that you check with your physician.  There are some interactions, particularly with the "natural" medicines with other medications you might be taking which range from making either the "natural" medicines or the others less effective to making one or the other downright lethal.  That said, if you can take it, one baby aspirin per day helps a lot.

Music: It is possible that you may find that you have to be a little more careful in selecting either very fast pieces or pieces with large reaches; your fingers just may not like it.  On the other hand, playing, itself, is about the best hand exercise you can find and the more you do it, the better you will be able to do it.  Really.  There may come a time (for my mother, it was when she was 88) when the arthritis catches up with the technique and you will be reduced to little things -- but it needn't be now.

Other exercise: try to avoid other activities which put real stress on the fingers.  Not completely, you can't -- but be a little cautious with them.  Particularly vibration (for example, I find that if I use a chain saw for a couple of hours -- which I have to from time to time -- I can't play at all for a day or so).

[jogoeshome]

Are you kidding? If you're 79 that's perfectly normal... try warm up before playing harder pieces

[lelle]

Seems like more of a health question. I research natural health as a hobby. For arthritis, off the top of my head: minerals, glucosomine, chondroitin, black cherry and pineapple juices, raw apple cider vinegar, oregano oil, and ginger. Here, let me get you a link:

https://www.naturalnews.com/023045_arthritis_pain_tea.html

I also read about this stuff. I've also heard that glucoseamine is supposed to be good. Also Omega-3 fatty acid is reported to have anti-inflammatory properties, and is found in fat fish like salmon and as supplements. Lots of Western food contains a lot of Omega-6 which is inflammatory instead, so an increase in Omega-3 rich food combined with a reduction of Omega-6 rich foods could help reduce inflammation in the body.

[lloyd_cdb]

I also read about this stuff. I've also heard that glucoseamine is supposed to be good. Also Omega-3 fatty acid is reported to have anti-inflammatory properties, and is found in fat fish like salmon and as supplements. Lots of Western food contains a lot of Omega-6 which is inflammatory instead, so an increase in Omega-3 rich food combined with a reduction of Omega-6 rich foods could help reduce inflammation in the body.

I'd stick to things doctors recommend.  Not to be obnoxious, but reading about it doesn't make it true. Taking 5 minutes to look through that, the article just cites other articles that state it's good for you.  "Studies show" do not include sites that are selling those products and saying they are magical.  None of these articles actually cite a scientific study. It's just a merry-go-round of rumors.  It's entirely possible some of them might help,but it's also entirely possible some of them could be incredibly destructive to your health.

EDIT: One of the sources for that article is actually all but the exact same article that doesn't cite anything at all.  It also includes a statement in regards to one of the "cures":

Caution: If you have high blood pressure, limit your intake of supplemental vitamin E to a total of 400 international units daily. If you are taking an anticoagulant (blood thinner), consult your healthcare practitioner before taking supplemental vitamin E.

Most people don't bother reading any of this.

[cjp_piano]

I'd stick to things doctors recommend.  Not to be obnoxious, but reading about it doesn't make it true. Taking 5 minutes to look through that, the article just cites other articles that state it's good for you.  "Studies show" do not include sites that are selling those products and saying they are magical.  None of these articles actually cite a scientific study. It's just a merry-go-round of rumors.  It's entirely possible some of them might help,but it's also entirely possible some of them could be incredibly destructive to your health.

EDIT: One of the sources for that article is actually all but the exact same article that doesn't cite anything at all.  It also includes a statement in regards to one of the "cures":

Caution: If you have high blood pressure, limit your intake of supplemental vitamin E to a total of 400 international units daily. If you are taking an anticoagulant (blood thinner), consult your healthcare practitioner before taking supplemental vitamin E.

Most people don't bother reading any of this.

True, reading something doesn't make it true. That's why I encourage everyone to think for themselves, do their own research, etc. You can certainly look up plenty of studies on these remedies. And, despite freedom of speech in the US, you often can't say certain things about "curing" or "treating" a disease. That's why many natural products say "NOT approved by the FDA. NOT intended to treat or cure . . . " even though it probably actually DOES treat and cure it. The pharmaceutical/medical establishment suppresses this information which is why I like to get it out there.

Sure, you can "poopoo" the article I linked to. But there are thousands and thousands, not just that one. The idea is to consider food, herbs, lifestyle, etc. instead of just seeing what drug a doctor prescribes.

Health and wellness to all!

[lelle]

I'd stick to things doctors recommend.  Not to be obnoxious, but reading about it doesn't make it true. Taking 5 minutes to look through that, the article just cites other articles that state it's good for you.  "Studies show" do not include sites that are selling those products and saying they are magical.  None of these articles actually cite a scientific study. It's just a merry-go-round of rumors.  It's entirely possible some of them might help,but it's also entirely possible some of them could be incredibly destructive to your health.

EDIT: One of the sources for that article is actually all but the exact same article that doesn't cite anything at all.  It also includes a statement in regards to one of the "cures":

Caution: If you have high blood pressure, limit your intake of supplemental vitamin E to a total of 400 international units daily. If you are taking an anticoagulant (blood thinner), consult your healthcare practitioner before taking supplemental vitamin E.

Most people don't bother reading any of this.

Of course you need to have some common sense and not take too much of something. Follow the recommended dosage, it's there for a reason.

[lloyd_cdb]

Of course you need to have some common sense and not take too much of something. Follow the recommended dosage, it's there for a reason.

If only people had common sense.  In regards to the FDA, it's not as if it's a conspiracy.  The FDA has strict guidelines as to what they approve.  If it's a viable drug, it will pass those guidelines.  People believe way too much of the crap that says "This weight-loss product costs only $10 and will put your gym out of business.  Find out the trick they don't want you to know!".

I read this stuff and I think of my father.  He treats cancer for a living.  He has patients that come in and tell him how to treat them, and are subsequently pissed when he says no.

[cjp_piano]

If only people had common sense.  In regards to the FDA, it's not as if it's a conspiracy.  The FDA has strict guidelines as to what they approve.  If it's a viable drug, it will pass those guidelines.  People believe way too much of the crap that says "This weight-loss product costs only $10 and will put your gym out of business.  Find out the trick they don't want you to know!".

I read this stuff and I think of my father.  He treats cancer for a living.  He has patients that come in and tell him how to treat them, and are subsequently pissed when he says no.

How about "curing" cancer. Does he do that?

As far as the FDA, sure, they have strict guidelines, but they also have lobbyists and a nice revolving door between them and pharmaceutical companies. The Rockefellers rigged the system in favor of allopathic medicine back in the early 20th century. That's why people think natural medicine is cooky, not because it lacks evidence. There's evidence, just not on CNN or web MD =)

[cjp_piano]

I have to apologize for turning this thread into a health discussion, but couldn't help it. You asked!  haha

[lloyd_cdb]

lol.  I think the OP got enough advice.  Time for random rants

[lloyd_cdb]

How about "curing" cancer. Does he do that?

As far as the FDA, sure, they have strict guidelines, but they also have lobbyists and a nice revolving door between them and pharmaceutical companies. The Rockefellers rigged the system in favor of allopathic medicine back in the early 20th century. That's why people think natural medicine is cooky, not because it lacks evidence. There's evidence, just not on CNN or web MD =)

He doesn't "cure cancer" as a whole.  He treats specific kinds and researches new treatments.  People don't realize how drastically different every cancer is, and how one thing treats one disease and does nothing to another.  This is why I giggle every time I see "This is the cure to cancer that the pharma companies don't want you to know!".

I definitely agree that there is a historical lean towards allopathic.  My dad is mainly a researcher/teacher.  Speaking from that perspective, I know that they do actually investigate homeopathic medicine.  The issue is that there is too much garbage which pollutes that word combination.  The typical "it's natural, man" attachment that comes along with homeopathic often times gives it a very negative image.  Frequently, the "studies show" are individuals claiming it works because it worked on them. They failed to report that they were snorting wheatgrass, sticking mulch up their bum and inhaling pine needle fumes at the same time.  Empirical data is still the best way to decide whether or not something works.  Studies with controls and placebos are needed to actually verify this stuff.  And in all actuality, many of the homeopathic medicines get incorporated into allopathic medicine, but only AFTER there is sufficient data.  Many of the nausea drugs used with chemotherapy are based off finding the effective chemicals in homeopathic medicines.  They are also significantly more effective than smoking weed, man.

[cjp_piano]

Well, there are people getting cured from cancer, and yes, even though every cancer is different and every person is different, there are basic principles that seem to remain true. For example, cancer thrives in an oxygen-deficient, acidic environment, and loves sugar. So if you starve your cancer by not eating any sugar, and turn your body more alkaline by eating greens and other alkaline forming foods, and stay away from processed foods, your cancer will probably die. There are many treatments, protocols, and doctors who are CURING cancer without chemo and radiation =)

[lloyd_cdb]

Well, there are people getting cured from cancer, and yes, even though every cancer is different and every person is different, there are basic principles that seem to remain true. For example, cancer thrives in an oxygen-deficient, acidic environment, and loves sugar. So if you starve your cancer by not eating any sugar, and turn your body more alkaline by eating greens and other alkaline forming foods, and stay away from processed foods, your cancer will probably die. There are many treatments, protocols, and doctors who are CURING cancer without chemo and radiation =)

I wasn't sure what you meant by "cure cancer".  He hasn't cured cancer, he's cured people with cancer.

All those studies are in regards to reducing risk factors, NOT treatment.  Treatment is DRASTICALLY different than prevention. It's like saying your skin cancer will probably go away if you stay in the shade.  If you stop smoking, your lung cancer will probably go away.

Beyond any of this, dietary changes will not change pH levels anywhere in your body with the exception of your digestive tract and urine.  Changing your diet doesn't change your long term pH, nor does it effect even mid-term.  pH only changes for very short time periods and re-adjusts itself almost immediately.  If it doesn't, you die.  So stating that it will probably help is a) a significant exaggeration that is probably completely unstudied and b) it's impossible to actually study. This is probably, again, due to the merry-go-round of citations.  

Cancer cells aren't the only thing in your body.  Your body functions by chemical reactions which, with a change in pH, stop functioning.  Hold your breath, your blood begins to become acidic from lack of oxygen.  Take one breath, and it reverts almost immediately.  If you decide to eat an entire bottle of tums, your stomach acid will turn alkaline for a couple minutes if that.  I don't mean to say that this is the only homeopathic solution though, it just points to the lack of evidence that is somehow accepted as fact.

People will always seek alternatives regardless of efficacy. 'Proving' alternatives typically leads to bad science.  Trying to prove something works compared to testing it as a possibility almost always leads to data-mining to justify an opinion.

I'm not saying homeopathic treatments don't work.  I'm saying homeopathic treatments that haven't been studied are too commonly accepted as fact, especially when allopathic treatments exist and have been statistically proven to work.  Many of these allopathic medications are based on homeopathic research that is then 'cleaned up' to prevent other aspects of the treatment that may be harmful, and may not even be as bad as the media portrayed cancer patient.

The issue is media attention, not necessarily lack of research.  These things make media attention before they are even studied and subsequently become common "knowledge" and subsequently demanded by patients.  A great example is vaccines and autism.  The amount of funding that goes into scare tactics against parents and the amount of media attention it garners is absurd, especially given every significant study has shown no correlation.  Media says "Studies show" vaccines cause autism.  The only study that linked the two was done in 1998 and refuted in 2008 due to improper study design, data-mining and completely made up fraudulent data.  The author had his medical license revoked.  In addition, the ingredient studied was eliminated or greatly reduced in almost every vaccine 2 years later.  Studies then showed there were no changes in autism frequency or severity in the spectrum.  26% of parents are still 'concerned about vaccine safety', while 20% of parents still believe there is causal evidence of a link.  Media at its finest. They will report a story regardless if it is grounded in any semblance of reality simply for controversy.

https://www.cnn.com/2011/HEALTH/01/05/autism.vaccines/index.html

A great and extremely relevant study in regards to Arthritis

https://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/11/1039.short?rss=1&amp%3bssource=mfr

This is from ~1980. This is about Rheumatoid Arthritis and dietary studies.  It actually showed a significantly statistical improvement based on dietary changes.  That research turned into researching the specific compounds that affect it, not telling everyone to change their diet. Showing a correlation doesn't mean there are no other negative side effects, i.e. long term stomach damage. What if recommending one of those Homeopathic treatments actually increased the risk factors of developing stomach cancer? Congrats for improving your wrist, enjoy dying from stomach cancer (28% 5-year survival rate).

Last comments are just a couple of comments about public perception.

This is a study in 1992 about homeopathic treatment prevalence, citing articles about their survival rate (showing it hasn't been consistently ignored as many believe):

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/canjclin.42.3.181/pdf

There haven't been many treatment studies on homeopathic treatments as a replacement for allopathic treatments.  Typically they are used as a supplement.  This is mainly due to human rights violations, hippocratic oath and the tuskegee experiments; in addition it is close to impossible to create a placebo group that wouldn't violate the reasons mentioned.

My point boils down to:
a) Don't jump to conclusions, do proper research and don't spread internet 'citations'.
b) These solutions are too often displayed as a complete alternative.  They aren not mutually exclusive.

EDIT:  TL;DR

[lloyd_cdb]

Ummm... Sorry for another essay.  I do actually enjoy these types of discussions though.

[cjp_piano]

Are you saying cancer doesn't need an acidic environment to survive?

[lloyd_cdb]

It can function in an alkaline pH as well, but acidity is correlated with increased risk factors.  The pH of the blood system is naturally balanced slightly to the alkaline side anyway, so saying cancer can't thrive in an alkaline environment is just not true.  Extremes in any direction are clearly bad for you.  pH below 6.5 can also kill cancer cells, just as pH over 7.5 can have the same effect. Also, the pH of the digestive system is naturally balanced slightly acidic.  Ingesting an overly alkaline diet can have a negative effect on the digestive tract. Most importantly, changing your internal pH from acidic to alkaline doesn't mean it will TARGET cancer cells.  A balanced diet is clearly how your body stays healthy.  Acidic pH does actually increases your risk of cancer as well as most diseases as you mentioned.  But all of this is in regards to prevention, not treatment. Suddenly gaining an alkaline pH doesn't means "your cancer will probably die".  

Obviously having a healthy diet is incredibly important to your health.  Short term illnesses that target your immune system like the common cold and the flu can be improved by changing to a healthier diet.  But cancer isn't a disease that targets your immune system.  It is a genetic mutation that shuts down the gene in cells that are supposed to turn off their growth.  pH isn't going to reverse a genetic mutation.  All those studies you mention happen in controlled laboratory experiments with unnatural pH, none of which can practically be done within the body. Additionally, there is little evidence to indicate that eating alkaline foods can significantly change your body's pH long-term, especially to a point in which it will affect cancer cells.  Again, it's all about prevention which is a long term healthy diet.

You have other cells in your body that are just as affected by pH.  Your brain is naturally slightly alkaline, I think it's around 7.2.  High alkalinity can trigger confusion, dizziness, seizures and even lead to coma/death.  Trying to change your pH because you have been diagnosed with cancer can have dramatic and immediate effects on your body.  The brain is very fragile, it doesn't take much to damage your brain permanently.  Everything needs to be done in balance. Sudden lifestyle changes can be more harmful than good and don't magically make you better.

Lastly, chemo and radiation treatment, not the actual cancer are the things that weaken your immune system.  So maintaining a healthy diet and keeping your immune system healthy can improve your chances of not dying from a simple cold while under treatment.

TL;DR SUMMARY:

A healthy diet can contribute to staying healthy regardless of your health situation, but can't specifically cure certain diseases.  Homeopathic extreme diets can have a drastic and immediate negative impact on your health. Good diets and medical treatments aren't mutually exclusive.  Having a crappy diet just because you are on chemo is just as dumb as trying to cure yourself by a diet change without proper medical treatment.

[cjp_piano]

Now that summary is just blatantly false! A healthy diet can't cure specific diseases!?!? Where have you been?!  haha

How about all the people who eat completely raw and cure their diabetes?!

Seems like you're too entrenched in the mindset of disease and modern medicine. Best of luck to ya!

[j_menz]

How about all the people who eat completely raw and cure their diabetes?!

I believe the term is "control", not "cure".

[lloyd_cdb]

Now that summary is just blatantly false! A healthy diet can't cure specific diseases!?!? Where have you been?!  haha

How about all the people who eat completely raw and cure their diabetes?!

Seems like you're too entrenched in the mindset of disease and modern medicine. Best of luck to ya!

Certain diseases doesn't mean all diseases.  Considering our conversation was almost purely about cancer, I'm not quite sure how you could interpret it that way given the previous sentences.  One of which being "Short term illnesses that target your immune system like the common cold and the flu can be improved by changing to a healthier diet." That seems like you are intentionally twisting my words to justify your argument instead of disprove mine.  If there is anything you believe is "blatantly false", feel free to point it out instead of calling me an ignorant liar.

I am 'entrenched' in modern medicine not because of 'being part of the system, man', but because it adheres to basic math, sensibility and doubt.  Claiming something works because you've heard that it works doesn't hold a thread to trying your hardest to disprove it and subsequently failing.  Citing case studies doesn't prove anything, which is almost exclusively what homeopathic justifications are.  As I've stated multiple times, I don't believe that homeopathic treatments are not viable. You claim them as valid alternatives based on word of mouth, and then claim I'm a liar because you've twisted a single sentence in each of my previous replies.  But if you'd like, you can misquote me a few more times to "win" the discussion.

Let's apply this to music since we are actually on this forum.  Schubert is believed to have died because of mercury poisoning in treating syphilis.  There was no proof to be had that it was an effective treatment, but I could venture a guess that someone stated "it worked for someone I know".  I think I'm going to go hand mercury out in health centers because I read somewhere that it works. In 1923 a STUDY was performed that showed it was actually poisonous. This is the problem with the crap that is spewed.  You know nothing of any potential side effects of any of the crap you mentioned, but justify it because it's 'natural'.  So is mercury.

The 'homeopathic' solution that you mention about diabetes is actually allopathic, so try again.  It's a balanced diet PROVEN to work given it's nutritional content, a concept we understand due to practical research.  It isn't random foods that someone read on a website that quotes another website that quotes the original website <--- homeopathy.  Just because it's natural doesn't make it homeopathy.  What you seem to be ignorant about is that a fair amount western medications are derived from homeopathic practices.  Western medicine researches homeopathy, homeopathy insults western medicine.  Seems like a pretty dumb way of thinking, but...

"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt." - Bertrand Russell

[lloyd_cdb]

Also, is there anyway this could be moved to off-topic?  I don't want to distract the people that are actually here to talk about piano.

[pennib]

Thanks every one for your replies and also apologies for this post being off subject.
Yes I appreciate that at 79 arthritis is not unusual but as someone who has returned to the piano after a very long absence its not helping.

[hfmadopter]

Thanks every one for your replies and also apologies for this post being off subject.
Yes I appreciate that at 79 arthritis is not unusual but as someone who has returned to the piano after a very long absence its not helping.

Alan, I don't see it as off topic at all and I also commend you for returning to piano at 79.

 My wife is riddled with arthritis FWIW, nearly crippled at one point in her life. She treated it with dietary changes, glucosamine capsules and doctor prescribed Celebrex and gets around pretty decently now at 64. Also FWIW, she treated the dietary end of things after reading a doctors book on arthritis where he suggests stopping your entire diet and eating fish and rice and chicken broth for a short time. She did that and improved markedly ( she didn't have to sleep sitting up in a chair with a neck brace on at least). The the idea is to start adding in your normal foods one at a time and look for any change. It turned out that all citrus kicked the arthritis right off, number one offender. Pork products brought on dull aching in the joints and black pepper worsened that . So you guessed it, she doesn't eat those items nor cook with black pepper ( she has substituted green pepper corns in a pepper mill). She added the glucosamine herself which helped a bit to limber joints up. The the doctor put her on celebrex just as soon as it came available which means no Ibuprofen in her life ( taking large does of Ibuprofen gave her an ulcer).

I have some arthritic in my neck from an accident and take the glucosamine myself in a liquid form called joint juice. It helps with neck stiffness. Doesn't cure the arthritis but it keeps flair ups down and the neck more limber.

[lloyd_cdb]

Thanks every one for your replies and also apologies for this post being off subject.
Yes I appreciate that at 79 arthritis is not unusual but as someone who has returned to the piano after a very long absence its not helping.

I didn't mean to say your question was off-topic, just that I figured you had answers already and I subsequently hijacked the thread

[jollisg]

I don't want to force you into anything or sound like I try to missionize or anything. I just want to tell you that there're many cases where arthritis have been cured by a low fat (whole) vegan diet. I myself eat a low fat raw vegan diet, and my joints have become better (I have arthritis in my family, and my joints used to crack really bad. I don't tell you that it's the only right thing to do, but I just have to say it so it's a option. At least I would say that dairy is the worst thing, you kind of can't get rid of arthritis without cutting out dairy. But, you have to decide for yourself what you want to do!

I wish you the best of luck, and that you can do whatever you want to do! many hugs (Y)

[lloyd_cdb]

At least I would say that dairy is the worst thing, you kind of can't get rid of arthritis without cutting out dairy. But, you have to decide for yourself what you want to do!

Sorry for getting back into the homeopathy debate (kind of), but this is exactly what I was getting at with my comments.  This is a natural cure that's actually been studied.  It isn't someone saying "I heard this works, so it does".  It's comments like these that actually help.  Taking 30 seconds to look it up, I found this article, that actually cites studies.  This is "allopathic", not homeopathic.  Natural =/= homeopathy.

https://www.pcrm.org/health/health-topics/foods-and-arthritis

References
1. Panush RS, Carter RL, Katz P, Kowsari B, Longley S, Finnie S. Diet therapy for rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism. 1983;26:462-471.
2. Lithell H, Bruce A, Gustafsson IB, et al. A fasting and vegetarian diet treatment trial on chronic inflammatory disorders. Acta Derm Venereol. 1983;63:397-403.
3. Sobel D. Arthritis: What Works. New York, St. Martin's Press, 1989.
4. Skoldstam L, Larsson L, Lindstrom FD. Effects of fasting and lactovegetarian diet on rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 1979;8:249-255.
5. Skoldstam L. Fasting and vegan diet in rheumatoid arthritis. Scand J Rheumatol. 1986;15:219-223.
6. McDougall J, Bruce B, Spiller G, Westerdahl J, McDougall M. Effects of a very low-fat, vegan diet in subjects with rheumatoid arthritis. J Altern Complement Med. 2002;8(1):71-75.
7. Hafstrom I, Ringertz B, Spangberg A, von Zweigbergk L, Brannemark S, Nylander I, Ronnelid J, Laasonen L, Klareskog L. A vegan diet free of gluten improves the signs and symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis: the effects on arthritis correlate with a reduction in antibodies to food antigens. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2001;40(10):1175-1179.
8. Hanninen, Kaartinen K, Rauma AL, Nenonen M, Torronen R, Hakkinen AS, Adlercreutz H, Laakso J. Antioxidants in vegan diet and rheumatic disorders. Toxicology. 2000;155(1-3):45-53.
9. Muller H, de Toledo FW, Resch KL. Fasting followed by vegetarian diet in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review. Scand J Rheumatol. 2001;30(1):1-10.
10. Merry P, Grootveld M, Lunec J, Blake DR. Oxidative damage to lipids within the inflamed human joint provides evidence of radical-mediated hypoxic-reperfusion injury. Am J Clin Nutr. 1991;53:362S-369S.

[mahlermaniac]

:suspicious Fry:

Anyways. I don't know about arthritis, but I do get a lot of pain when I'm not careful with the temperature. My knees and wrists hurt a lot, specially when I eat a lot of meat, so the only recommendation I can give is always warm up before playing, and after you're finished playing put on some gloves to cool down slowly and to protect your hands from an abrupt temperature change or exposure which can even result in tendonitis. And, most importantly, why not ask a doctor/therapist instead?

You might want to get evaluated for gout. Knees and wrists are not the typical locations for gout, but it can happen there. Your description of this ocurring when you eat a lot of meet could potentially point to elevated uric acid which can then form crystals that cause joint pain.

[lloyd_cdb]

It actually is typical in the knees, but mostly in the feet.  Any of the load bearing joints tend to be the most susceptible.  People often ignore the pain figuring it's just from normal standing 'fatigue'.  It may be possible you are ignoring that aspect while focusing on pain in areas that you may notice less frequently.  Just a thought.  It can also be triggered by beer consumption, although I'm not positive if it's the gluten aspect or the alcohol.  I assume the former but can't really say for certain.

[cjp_piano]

Sorry for getting back into the homeopathy debate (kind of), but this is exactly what I was getting at with my comments.  This is a natural cure that's actually been studied.  It isn't someone saying "I heard this works, so it does".  It's comments like these that actually help.  Taking 30 seconds to look it up, I found this article, that actually cites studies.  This is "allopathic", not homeopathic.  Natural =/= homeopathy.

Sorry, but we don't need a scientific study for everything in life. It gets kind of annoying how everyone says, "is there a study?"

Does there need to be a study that says its helpful if you look both ways before you cross the street? Does there need one to say that drinking plenty of water is good? Some things are just common knowledge, which is what a lot of natural medicine is. Eat/drink ginger for an upset stomach. There doesn't need to be a study saying that it's more effective than pepto bismol.

[j_menz]

Some things are just common knowledge

Indeed. The flatness of the earth, the motions of the planets around the earth, the effectiveness of Mercury in the treatment of syphilis, that witches exist, that thar be dragons....

Can't see why you'd want to "study" any further on any of those.

 

[ajspiano]

that witches exist

To be fair, witches exist.. its just that the definition is more "crazy" than "magic".

https://www.witchvox.com/

^there's one near you actually - though he says he's a vampire (not technically a witch).

[j_menz]

To be fair, witches exist.. its just that the definition is more "crazy" than "magic".

https://www.witchvox.com/

^there's one near you actually - though he says he's a vampire (not technically a witch).

They were only fun when there were stakes and burnings involved. Maybe time for a revival!

Oh, and a witch is not "technically" a vampire in the same sense that a piano is not "technically" a type of hat.

[ajspiano]

Oh, and a witch is not "technically" a vampire in the same sense that a piano is not "technically" a type of hat.

witches, vampires ...humans pretending to - or believing they do - possess powers or traits that are not real.

[j_menz]

humans pretending

I meant real ones, from my first mention.

You don't need a study to know there are nutcases out there.

[outin]

  This is "allopathic", not homeopathic.  Natural =/= homeopathy.

I wish that people would get informed enough not to confuse natural medications or even alternative medication with homeopathy. The base and definition of homeopathy still is the same unscientific mumble jumble as it was in Samuel Hahnemann's times.

The principle of homeopathy is in a short version this: "a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people". Another form of homeopathy is the  Bach flower remedy (just google, I am not even going to bother to explain the thing about "water having memory" and how one must shake the water to get this to work). If you seriously can believe in all that, then by all means trust homeopathy.

Much of our medicine is based on plants and other "natural" remedies and I don't think anyone can dispute the effects of nutrition to health. But this has nothing to do with homeopathy.

[cjp_piano]

I wish that people would get informed enough not to confuse natural medications or even alternative medication with homeopathy. The base and definition of homeopathy still is the same unscientific mumble jumble as it was in Samuel Hahnemann's times.

The principle of homeopathy is in a short version this: "a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people". Another form of homeopathy is the  Bach flower remedy (just google, I am not even going to bother to explain the thing about "water having memory" and how one must shake the water to get this to work). If you seriously can believe in all that, then by all means trust homeopathy.

Much of our medicine is based on plants and other "natural" remedies and I don't think anyone can dispute the effects of nutrition to health. But this has nothing to do with homeopathy.

Wow, you have much to learn . . .

[outin]

Wow, you have much to learn . . .

That I can agree with, but that has nothing to do with homeopathy either...

I know quite a few people who have studied and practice homeopathy and they do not talk about this part a lot, because I guess they know how ridiculous it sounds. Instead they mix concepts like natural or alternative medicine in their speech and use scientific sounding words and explanations and BS studies to hide the fact that there simply is no real science behind what they do. They must sound convincing to someone in need for help and disappointed with ordinary doctors/medicine. It's about faith and I have no doubt that faith can heal.

[lloyd_cdb]

Wow, you have much to learn . . .

I'm sure all of us have much to learn (yourself included).  The only thing is that you have a specific trend of answers throughout this thread.  They boil down to:

"You're wrong".  Mostly in under 3 or 4 sentences with nothing to support that statement.  This is the exact issue with many 'homeopathy'/natural/alternative remedy supporters.  They all but REFUSE to encourage or support a responsible method of checking to see if their remedies are actually useful.  I'm not exactly sure why, but I can only figure out two reasons. a) You're afraid to be wrong, so you don't want it to be investigated for fear of looking 'dumb'; b) You actually KNOW you're wrong and want to save face.  I lean towards the first reason, but I have definitely know people to go by the second one (some autism/vaccination believers).  

Western medicine isn't evil.  It is often derived from natural products and filtered so that the beneficial aspects are enhanced while the negative components are eliminated.  Take for example Marijuana and nausea suppression.  Marijuana does work (albeit only mildly), but has carcinogenic aspects, potential for other unintended ingredients, etc.  Western medicine investigated it to find the components that are effective, isolated and enhanced them so they are more beneficial and less harmful.  Considering naturalists form their belief around 'helpful and not harmful', how is that so damn awful or evil?

Sorry, but we don't need a scientific study for everything in life.

Some things are just common knowledge, which is what a lot of natural medicine is. Eat/drink ginger for an upset stomach. There doesn't need to be a study saying that it's more effective than pepto bismol.

You are completely right that some things have been figured out through the ages and are common knowledge.  That doesn't give you the right to judge which ones are common knowledge and which aren't. Several of the 'common knowledge' remedies you cited for arthritis were subsequently shown to be harmful in those evil scientific studies that were mentioned earlier.  But I guess those are probably wrong, and your merry-go-round of citations is much more probable.  BTW, saying ginger is more helpful that pepto bismol is not the point.  The issue is saying that it's useful at all with nothing to support that claim, whereas pepto bismol was studied to find it's effects. (this doesn't mean I don't think it's helpful, just that generalizing remedies based on some that you know doesn't make all of them helpful or 'common knowledge')

Most natural remedy supporters form the framework of their argument around the fact that it's natural and therefore healthier.  Western medicine goes through rigorous safety trials and statistical studies to show benefits and harms.  Alternative medicine has been shown to have harmful effects in regards to specific 'common knowledge' cures after being investigated.  Of course you hear the western medicine side effects of "may cause drowsiness, burning urine, lack of feeling in your right pinky toe".  But do you really think alternative medicine has never had a side effect?  That would be one of the most ignorant statements possible.  *cough* mercury *cough* bleeding *cough*.  At bare minimum, it's nice to actually know what those side effects are instead of pretending they don't exist.  Wouldn't you rather know if what you're ingesting is poisonous and not helpful, just like some have been shown to be in the past?

[slobone]

I returned to playing the piano a few years ago specifically because I was worried about getting arthritis in my fingers. My theory was that if I didn't start exercising my fingers on a regular basis, the arthritis would only get worse. That's what happened to my mother, and it was very sad. She had always loved playing, but she stopped for a few years, and when she tried to do it again, it was too late.

The pain I was experiencing was in the bottom joint of my thumb, which made it very hard to play scales where I had to turn the thumb under. But I just started doing what I could, and gently exercising the affected joint every day. Eventually the pain went away and I could play perfectly normally. In fact I've lately been playing a piece that's really stretching my fingers with big arpeggios, and I think I've actually increased my reach.

So that's my suggestion for the OP -- play regularly, start with stuff that doesn't hurt too much, but gradually challenge yourself more. Don't give up.

[cjp_piano]

I'm sure all of us have much to learn (yourself included).  The only thing is that you have a specific trend of answers throughout this thread.  They boil down to:

"You're wrong".  Mostly in under 3 or 4 sentences with nothing to support that statement.  This is the exact issue with many 'homeopathy'/natural/alternative remedy supporters.  They all but REFUSE to encourage or support a responsible method of checking to see if their remedies are actually useful.  I'm not exactly sure why, but I can only figure out two reasons. a) You're afraid to be wrong, so you don't want it to be investigated for fear of looking 'dumb'; b) You actually KNOW you're wrong and want to save face.  I lean towards the first reason, but I have definitely know people to go by the second one (some autism/vaccination believers).  

I'm not afraid to be wrong. I love finding out new things and am always open. That's what started my whole change away from conventional medicine. I was open to the possibility that perhaps pharmaceutical companies don't have our health interests in mind. As for the 2nd reason, no, I don't know I'm wrong and trying to save face.

The reason I said you have much to learn is because there's so much to say to respond to the comment, that I just have to say you have much to learn. There's no way I can post all the research, studies, doctors, experts, and other things that counter what was said.

Most natural remedy supporters form the framework of their argument around the fact that it's natural and therefore healthier.  Western medicine goes through rigorous safety trials and statistical studies to show benefits and harms.  Alternative medicine has been shown to have harmful effects in regards to specific 'common knowledge' cures after being investigated.  Of course you hear the western medicine side effects of "may cause drowsiness, burning urine, lack of feeling in your right pinky toe".  But do you really think alternative medicine has never had a side effect?  That would be one of the most ignorant statements possible.  *cough* mercury *cough* bleeding *cough*.  At bare minimum, it's nice to actually know what those side effects are instead of pretending they don't exist.  Wouldn't you rather know if what you're ingesting is poisonous and not helpful, just like some have been shown to be in the past?

Regarding rigorous studies and trials- are you talking about the ridiculous pony show they go through? Have you read their own documents on their criteria for trials and studies? It's laughable. You can look it up yourself.

Regarding side effects - Tell me the side effects of drinking a whole bottle of silver hydrosol, please! Tell me the side effects of taking 100 doses of a homeopathic remedy, please! There are none, sorry. And you forgot the most important side effect of some pharmaceuticals: DEATH. How many people die each year from pharmaceuticals? Look it up.

[lloyd_cdb]

I'm not afraid to be wrong. I love finding out new things and am always open. That's what started my whole change away from conventional medicine. I was open to the possibility that perhaps pharmaceutical companies don't have our health interests in mind. As for the 2nd reason, no, I don't know I'm wrong and trying to save face.

I definitely don't think everyone falls in those categories.  Just the ones that put their head in the sand and cry about conspiracies.  FYI, take a look at the financials of pharma, and you might actually understand why they cost what they do.  I'd rather pay 10,000 than 10 to have a drastic increase in survivability rate.

The reason I said you have much to learn is because there's so much to say to respond to the comment, that I just have to say you have much to learn. There's no way I can post all the research, studies, doctors, experts, and other things that counter what was said.

I don't expect you to post all the studies.  I expect you to post even ONE supporting point that has any validity instead of running from the conversation. Saying you have 'much to learn' is a cheap cop-out if you don't even bother supporting it with the most basic of comments that might actually support your point.  This is a worthless statement that just gives you an excuse to think you're actually making some case for yourself.

Regarding rigorous studies and trials- are you talking about the ridiculous pony show they go through? Have you read their own documents on their criteria for trials and studies? It's laughable. You can look it up yourself.

Of course you can look it up.  Only paranoid people would take the numbers from scientific studies and scream "CONSPIRACY!".  And of course there are articles that have been falsified.  Those people have their certifications revoke and also get jail time.  Guess what happens with alternative medicine promoters that kill people? Absolutely no accountability.  I'm pretty sure I've already addressed your hypocrisy in regards to "pony shows".

My father does research like this for a living.  We discuss it often.  I'm fairly inclined not to believe he's a liar and a slave of manipulative pharma, considering he gets ZERO funding and refuses to even take a pen from them.  As to your manipulative comments about "curing cancer" earlier, he has a 98% cure rate for testicular cancer.  He prescribes the most chemotherapy in his entire hospital.  Give me ANY alternative medicine that even compares to this, and you might have made your first valid point.

Regarding side effects - Tell me the side effects of drinking a whole bottle of silver hydrosol, please! Tell me the side effects of taking 100 doses of a homeopathic remedy, please! There are none, sorry.

"Side effects associated with the use of silver hydrosol include flu-like symptoms including chills, nausea and fever, skin irritation and possible kidney damage over time. The most common side effect associated with silver hydrosol is argyria, or mild silver poisoning. Symptoms of argyria include discoloration of your skin, fingers, nails and internal organs. While not life threatening, in most cases you can not reverse the discoloration associated with argyria. There are no known interactions between silver hydrosol and other drugs. You should also speak with a medical professional prior to taking any silver hydrosol supplement."

In addition:

"Manufacturers of silver hydrosol products typically recommend using this product as a health supplement to support your immune system. Some manufacturers even purport that you can use silver hydrosol instead of antibiotics to treat infections in your body. According to "Colloidal Silver: Antibiotic Superhero," you can also use this supplement to treat scarlet fever, syphilis and herpes. However, again scientific studies do not support the use of silver hydrosol to treat any specific medical condition, and you should speak with a medical professional prior to using this supplement."

Read more: https://www.livestrong.com/article/466863-what-is-silver-hydrosol/#ixzz2J0oYnZDV

20 seconds of research.  Do some before making yourself look like an idiot, which is exactly my point with useless comments that clearly contribute nothing positive to your point, and actually detract from it.

And you forgot the most important side effect of some pharmaceuticals: DEATH. How many people die each year from pharmaceuticals? Look it up.

~100,000 annually from adverse reactions.  This number, while drastic, is a useless number when arguing vs. alternative medicine which isn't even tracked.  In addition, this death rate ignores quality of life.  I'm sure I've mentioned, I have epilepsy.  There are 3m people with epilepsy in the US.  Western medications successfully treat the symptoms of at least 2.1m(70%) of them (or "cure" by your definition).  So far, there is only one effective alternative medicine that successfully treats epilepsy: a ketogenic diet.  For the 30% of epileptics that cannot be controlled through medication, a ketogenic diet has been shown to "cure" 10-15% of them.  My medication successfully treats my epilepsy and has a death rate of .05%.  My only side effect is dry mouth.  I think it's a reasonable trade-off.  I can drive a car, miss work only once a year for my doctor appointment, and enjoy being able to cook (my seizures are triggered by strong smells).  In regards to the all natural ketogenic diet, surprisingly, it has side effects:

Kidney stones
High cholesterol levels in the blood
Dehydration
Constipation
Slowed growth or weight gain
Bone fractures

High cholesterol can lead to death by heart attack.  Bone fractures can lead to increased chances of significant injuries.  Just because it doesn't specifically mention "death" doesn't mean it isn't an indirect side effect.  Don't be ignorant to believe that every alternative medicine makes you fart sunshine and rainbows.

Lastly, the discovery and subsequent research into the diet is potentially leading to a medication that might be able to simulate the diet while eliminating the significant chances of those food based side effects.  But I guess the pharma companies are only trying to more money.  Shame on them for doing that with a potential side effect of helping people.  They should stick to scamming everyone.

[dire_tonic]

 - pennib, a bit of a long shot but I wonder if you're regularly taking a statin?  I developed severe thumb arthritis which I'd initially put down to an over-vigourous return to piano after a 10-year hiatus.  But about a year earlier I’d been prescribed <a statin> and with the blessing of my consultant who also wondered if it might have been the culprit I decided last year to try cutting it out.  Now I'm certain; after 8 months the arthritis - and other problems - have all but vanished.  I hesitate to mention the brand name because we don't all have adverse reactions to these drugs.  It should also be noted that not all statins are alike.

Of course, if you're not taking a statin this will be of no help.  Another avenue of investigation could be online forums specific to the condition.  Also usenet e.g. alt.support.arthritis.
I wish you the best.

[cjp_piano]

I don't expect you to post all the studies.  I expect you to post even ONE supporting point that has any validity instead of running from the conversation. Saying you have 'much to learn' is a cheap cop-out if you don't even bother supporting it with the most basic of comments that might actually support your point.  This is a worthless statement that just gives you an excuse to think you're actually making some case for yourself.

If you remember, I was saying "you have much to learn" to member OUTIN, not you. And it was about this comments on homeopathy. It was not directed to you, and it was not about the topic in general, it was about what he said concerning homeopathy.

[cjp_piano]

I don't expect you to post all the studies.  I expect you to post even ONE supporting point that has any validity instead of running from the conversation. Saying you have 'much to learn' is a cheap cop-out if you don't even bother supporting it with the most basic of comments that might actually support your point.  This is a worthless statement that just gives you an excuse to think you're actually making some case for yourself.

I forgot to post . . . you expect me to post even ONE supporting point. What topic would you like? I'll glady post. For example, how about chemo actually CAUSING cancer? See below

https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/shock-study-chemotherapy-backfire-cancer-worse-triggering-tumor-growth-article-1.1129897

[cjp_piano]

Of course you can look it up.  Only paranoid people would take the numbers from scientific studies and scream "CONSPIRACY!".  And of course there are articles that have been falsified.  Those people have their certifications revoke and also get jail time.  Guess what happens with alternative medicine promoters that kill people? Absolutely no accountability.  I'm pretty sure I've already addressed your hypocrisy in regards to "pony shows".

My father does research like this for a living.  We discuss it often.  I'm fairly inclined not to believe he's a liar and a slave of manipulative pharma, considering he gets ZERO funding and refuses to even take a pen from them.  As to your manipulative comments about "curing cancer" earlier, he has a 98% cure rate for testicular cancer.  He prescribes the most chemotherapy in his entire hospital.  Give me ANY alternative medicine that even compares to this, and you might have made your first valid point.

How about Margaret Miller who worked for Monsanto, and then went over to work for FDA and ended up approving her own report!

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Labeling_Issues,_Revolving_Doors,_rBGH,_Bribery_and_Monsanto

(just search Margaret Miller since this is a long webpage)

As far as curing cancer, how about Dr. Burzynski? Huge cancer cure rate, attacked by medical boards and FDA. He cured brain cancer and others, even in stage 4. That's just one.

[cjp_piano]

"Side effects associated with the use of silver hydrosol include flu-like symptoms including chills, nausea and fever, skin irritation and possible kidney damage over time. The most common side effect associated with silver hydrosol is argyria, or mild silver poisoning. Symptoms of argyria include discoloration of your skin, fingers, nails and internal organs. While not life threatening, in most cases you can not reverse the discoloration associated with argyria. There are no known interactions between silver hydrosol and other drugs. You should also speak with a medical professional prior to taking any silver hydrosol supplement."

In addition:

"Manufacturers of silver hydrosol products typically recommend using this product as a health supplement to support your immune system. Some manufacturers even purport that you can use silver hydrosol instead of antibiotics to treat infections in your body. According to "Colloidal Silver: Antibiotic Superhero," you can also use this supplement to treat scarlet fever, syphilis and herpes. However, again scientific studies do not support the use of silver hydrosol to treat any specific medical condition, and you should speak with a medical professional prior to using this supplement."

Read more: https://www.livestrong.com/article/466863-what-is-silver-hydrosol/#ixzz2J0oYnZDV

20 seconds of research.  Do some before making yourself look like an idiot, which is exactly my point with useless comments that clearly contribute nothing positive to your point, and actually detract from it.

I've definitely done more than 20 seconds of research, haha. Obviously your 20 seconds paid off handsomely with that wonderful excerpt from livestrong.com

But unfortunately, it's incorrect. Argyria only occurs with improperly made silver solutions which have large particle sizes and are made with salt. You can drink gallons of this stuff and not have any side effects (unless it's a poorly made solution of course).

In fact, here's info on the toxicity (actually lack thereof)

"Purest Colloids, Inc. hired one of the leading independent laboratories in the U.S. to do a toxicology study on our colloidal silver product, Mesosilver. The test, called an LD-50 test, was performed in accordance with the guidelines of the Federal Hazardous Substances Act (FHSA) Regulations, 16 CFR 1500. In the test work, the Mesosilver was given to a number of both male and female test animals. The amount of Mesosilver given to the animals was 5g/kg of 20 ppm colloid, or the equivalent of a 200-pound man taking 30 tablespoons at one time (the normal adult dosage is between one teaspoon and four tablespoons/day). As a result of the test work, the independent laboratory made the following conclusion, “Under the conditions of this study, there was no mortality or significant evidence of toxicity observed in the rats. The test article Mesosilver would not be considered toxic at a dose of 5g/kg by oral route in the rat.”

That's from this link:

https://www.purestcolloids.com/toxicity.php  which also has a link to the EPA study. Look for yourself instead of trusting your 20 second research from livestrong.

How about silver to treat HIV? Heard of that one? Probably not . . .

https://www.jnanobiotechnology.com/content/3/1/6

How about some more studies and research that your trusty "livestrong" website says don't exist:

https://www.silvermedicine.org/scientificstudies.html

[lloyd_cdb]

If you remember, I was saying "you have much to learn" to member OUTIN, not you. And it was about this comments on homeopathy. It was not directed to you, and it was not about the topic in general, it was about what he said concerning homeopathy.

I didn't think it was directed towards me, maybe my commentary was overly aggressive. On the other hand, outin's commentary was actually very accurate in a historic sense. Homeopathy was founded and defined in regards to water memory.  Similarly, 'allopathic' was a derogatory term used by homeopaths. Allopathy isn't found to be offensive anymore, although not really used in scientific circles. Definitions change over time, my point was that your comment doesn't actually invalidate that post. All that being said, every single one of us should support the idea that we all have much to learn.

I forgot to post . . . you expect me to post even ONE supporting point. What topic would you like? I'll glady post. For example, how about chemo actually CAUSING cancer? See below

https://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/shock-study-chemotherapy-backfire-cancer-worse-triggering-tumor-growth-article-1.1129897

Piss poor interpretation and sensationalism, which is exactly what homeopathy thrives on.  As I mentioned, my father's cure rate is 98%.  Do you really think this happens to everyone or even the majority of the time?  This is a commonly known 'phenomena' in cancer treatment.  It's why patients rarely go through multiple treatments of chemotherapy.  This article is not about whether or not it happens but how it happens, which leads to the points I've continually addressed:

"The result paves the way for research into new, improved treatment, said Nelson.
"For example, an antibody to WNT16B, given with chemotherapy, may improve responses (kill more tumor cells)," he said in an email exchange.
"Alternatively, it may be possible to use smaller, less toxic doses of therapy."
"

The fact that they actually continue the research on the medicine they are using fully supports my entire point. They continue research to investigate the drugs they release to improve them and their health benefit to patients. Again, let me reiterate the word RESEARCH.

Side note: this is extremely related to my fathers research.  Certain people react better to certain treatments that may have zero effect on someone else.  What he's been doing is sequencing the genome of every one of his patients and their tumors over the last 10 years. He's using this to find what genes correlate to the efficacy of each different treatment so there is less guesswork involved. Before you even address "guesswork", it exists in every field of medicine. The medication I take for epilepsy isn't even approved for epilepsy, it just happens to work. Most epilepsy medicine isn't approved to treat it. It is, however, undergoing clinical trials to figure out how it works for epilepsy and ways to improve it. Thank you modern medicine for actually giving a sh*t about my quality of life.

How about Margaret Miller who worked for Monsanto, and then went over to work for FDA and ended up approving her own report!

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Labeling_Issues,_Revolving_Doors,_rBGH,_Bribery_and_Monsanto

(just search Margaret Miller since this is a long webpage)

As far as curing cancer, how about Dr. Burzynski? Huge cancer cure rate, attacked by medical boards and FDA. He cured brain cancer and others, even in stage 4. That's just one.

I'll address Burzynski first, simply because I'm incredibly entertained he was the example you chose as a supporting point. As a point of reference, his treatment IS chemotherapy and DOES have significant side effects. Mentioning him is a fantastically contradictory point to your conspiracy/paranoia of profiteering pharma companies. Burzynski's "clinical trials" cost hundreds of thousands of dollars which are not covered by insurance, DRASTICALLY MORE than the standardized chemo drugs which have actually undergone peer reviewed studies. He takes home an annual income of $1m.  The average oncologist takes home 280k.  Oh, did I mention Burzynski isn't even an oncologist? He has his M.D., but never completed a residency for specialization.

If you don't believe me, feel free to continue reading my comments regarding him as your supporting choice. If not, feel free to jump down to my response to Monsanto. I wish I could put it in a spoiler, get at it pianostreet. Moving on...

In addition, many hospitals have both financial aid and will waive costs, similar to Burzynski, so it's a moot point. I put clinical trials in quotations because, to date, he hasn't bothered actually doing a phase III clinical trial.  He has approval by the FDA for them, but his supporters spew the exact crap you mention that he is being attacked by the FDA. I'll address the "attacks" a little later in my essay.

 - Phase III trials: to verify whether a new treatment is better than standard treatment:

Randomized controlled trials give the highest level of evidence. In these trials, volunteers are put randomly (by chance) into one of 2 or more groups that compare different treatments. One group (called the control group) does not receive the new treatment being studied. The control group is compared to the groups that receive the new treatment, to see if the new treatment works. No randomized, controlled trials showing the effectiveness of antineoplastons have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

From a CBS interview:

Based upon his fee system and patient load, his annual income would be $20 million.  Burzynski concurred but said that not all of his patients paid their bills.  Burzynski claims that his medicine is quite costly to produce.  Cancer researcher and NCAHF board member, Saul Green, PhD, pointed to prices in a catalog showing that a bottle of medicine cost Burzynski 80 cents.

Burzynski has been criticized by fellow doctors for not doing serious clinical studies, but not prosecuted for it. HE WAS NOT PROSECUTED FOR USING HIS DRUGS, he was prosecuted for violating interstate commerce laws, mail fraud and attempting to scam insurance companies. A shining example of an alternate practitioner hero.

Lastly, since you posted him as a natural remedy case study, the crap he injects into people a) has side effects, and b) IS ACTUALLY CHEMOTHERAPY.  In phase II studies, 'severe nervous system' side effects including seizures and swelling of the brain.  Keep going, you're doing a great job supporting MY points.

Monsanto:

The article you mention is actually a great criticism of the involvement of beneficial companies in scientific studies. On the other hand, this was investigated by countless other organizations and found no financial conflict of interest. In no way do I support the allowance of such a potential conflict of interest. However, your argument is another example of selective reading and case studies. FYI, if you did a tiny bit more research, you would find that there have been other scientific studies having no funding or support by companies involved in the industry. So:

Regulators weren’t pressured or bribed to approve rBST. Smith cites his own prior unproven allegations to support his arguments that Monsanto tried to bribe Canadian regulators and that the FDA was forced by industry to approve rBST.  There is no evidence for these claims and if there were, there would have been plenty of prosecutions.  The real pressure on regulators comes not from the industry but from self-appointed activists who are free to make any claim they want without any accountability for truth.  Genetic Roulette is a perfect example of disrespect for evidence and logic.

https://academicsreview.org/reviewed-content/genetic-roulette/section-7/7-1-rbst-treated-milk-is-the-same-as-conventional-milk/

A mention of just a couple of the articles which exclude the Monsanto report. Smith wrote Genetic Roulette making wild accusations supported by the merry-go-round of articles you have mentioned, another great example of data-mining. Again, a fantastic example of paranoia and sensationalism that gives 'merit' to your points.