Arthritis

[lloyd_cdb]

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...

Fair point. On the other hand, livestrong wasn't the only article I read, just one that I posted.  My research missed out on the amount for a toxic level, so I apologize. In addition, your statement was:

"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."

However, you've mentioned one remedy and used it as a blanket statement to support homeopathy in general.  I've previously mentioned several examples that simply show data mining as supports to many of your points. In this case it doesn't necessarily apply, but as a general point for the rest of our discussion; evidence for lack of toxicology is not evidence for benefit.

Lastly, silver is actually already used in modern medicine. One of the major uses is a lining for catheters as an antiseptic. On the other hand, oral absorption of silver is under 10%. So your dosage is actually getting 1-3ppm. This highly supports your toxicity argument, but drastically changes the beneficiary aspect. In regards to HIV, only 2% of HIV cells in the body are contained in the blood stream. With the liver processing blood so quickly, it's hard to believe it could absorb that quickly into the body. I guess I'm hesitant to believe how efficient the suggested method and dosage would be. Looking at all the research, it would be hard to argue against the potential benefits of silver and definitely deserves more research. Claiming the dosage and sale from natural health stores is beneficial is still a bit of a stretch, but that's just my opinion.

The usages of silver from that research didn't mention the benefit vs. toxicity levels (at least from everything I read). This is similar to the acidity and cancer cells. Usage in a lab for specific purposes is different than usage within a person.

[cjp_piano]

Fair point. On the other hand, livestrong wasn't the only article I read, just one that I posted.  My research missed out on the amount for a toxic level, so I apologize. In addition, your statement was:

"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."

However, you've mentioned one remedy and used it as a blanket statement to support homeopathy in general.  I've previously mentioned several examples that simply show data mining as supports to many of your points. In this case it doesn't necessarily apply, but as a general point for the rest of our discussion; evidence for lack of toxicology is not evidence for benefit.

Lastly, silver is actually already used in modern medicine. One of the major uses is a lining for catheters as an antiseptic. On the other hand, oral absorption of silver is under 10%. So your dosage is actually getting 1-3ppm. This highly supports your toxicity argument, but drastically changes the beneficiary aspect. In regards to HIV, only 2% of HIV cells in the body are contained in the blood stream. With the liver processing blood so quickly, it's hard to believe it could absorb that quickly into the body. I guess I'm hesitant to believe how efficient the suggested method and dosage would be. Looking at all the research, it would be hard to argue against the potential benefits of silver and definitely deserves more research. Claiming the dosage and sale from natural health stores is beneficial is still a bit of a stretch, but that's just my opinion.

The usages of silver from that research didn't mention the benefit vs. toxicity levels (at least from everything I read). This is similar to the acidity and cancer cells. Usage in a lab for specific purposes is different than usage within a person.

You're fun to argue with, maybe we should do it in person sometime =)

I wasn't using silver to support homeopathy at all. I'm not even saying I support homeopathy, I'm just bringing up points for argument sake. I was using is as an example as something that doesn't have a bunch of side effects like DEATH, haha.

[cjp_piano]

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.

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.

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.

As far as Burzynski goes, I wasn't talking about the chemo, i was talking about the anti-neoplaston treatment, not the chemo, even though he does use integrative techniques. And the fact that you quote CBS begins to prove MY points, haha.

As far as Monsanto goes, just a few questions. If you had cows, would you give them rBST? Also, are you in favor of Monsanto's patented GMO seeds? Do you like chemical pesticides?

I find it interesting that you like calling me paranoid, sensational, and a "conspiracy" person. That's the easiest way to ignore possibilities, huh? Why am I paranoid for wanting to use natural remedies and not wanting to take pharmaceuticals which admittedly kill hundreds of thousands of people each year?

[lloyd_cdb]

As far as Burzynski goes, I wasn't talking about the chemo, i was talking about the anti-neoplaston treatment, not the chemo, even though he does use integrative techniques. And the fact that you quote CBS begins to prove MY points, haha.

Again, CBS is just one easy quick quote, which cited both Burzynski and another doctor. I'm not quite sure how and in what universe that would even support your point? In addition, the other guy quoted worked with my father. I wouldn't care what news source cited it whether it be NPR or Fox News as long as it wasn't taken out of context.

In regards to integrative treatment, my father does the exact same thing even though he prescribes chemotherapy to almost all his patients. He has many alternative medicinal options as supplemental treatment. Burzynski isn't unique at all in that regard. It's incredibly commonplace treatment protocol. The difference is that patients who use alternatives don't give the alternatives full credit.

My point about chemo is that he does normal chemo treatments, adds in his crap, and then claims it was his crap that healed them. It's selective reporting, data mining and the typical logical fallacies related to poor research. If he bothered doing actual research and it showed significance, I would jump on his bandwagon in a heartbeat. He has consciously chosen not to, and his fanatics blame the FDA even though he has approval for phase III. The FDA approval is actually fascinating considering the only phase II trials that are finished are the ones that were withdrawn. He has not yet completed a phase II trial that shows anything of significance, yet he has approval for phase III. His research is actually getting fast-laned through, contradictory to much of the fanatical critics that he surrounds himself with.

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=burzynski

When I looked up my father, his studies are either "Completed", "Active" or "Recruiting".  Not one of them is "unknown" like the majority of Burzynski's. What it shows is that he isn't even bothering to do the studies that have been approved.

EDIT: Burzynski has one completed phase II trial.  Completed in February 2005, the data has still not been published.

As far as Monsanto goes, just a few questions. If you had cows, would you give them rBST? Also, are you in favor of Monsanto's patented GMO seeds? Do you like chemical pesticides?

I'm in favor of genetic engineering, chemical pesticides, farting in glass jars and later inhaling it, snorting olive oil, stabbing myself in the eye with a sage leaf, etc.  As long as there are studies that actually support why in the hell I should do it and for what benefit. GOOD studies, independent studies, intelligent studies.

There has been no evidence suggesting GMO seeds are unsafe. The only potential issue is unethical business decisions associated with it, i.e. patent infringement abuses. But their patents are running out soon, so this will become a moot point. Again, feel free to point me in a direction that supports your concerns.

https://law.psu.edu/_file/aglaw/Impacts_of_Genetically_Modified.pdf

Genetic modification isn't a mysterious new invention. It exists in many industries, wine for example. We've been cross breeding grapes for ages trying to perfect grapes to grow in different climates with specific characteristics Genetic modification in a lab is no different than genetic modification in nature. It is simply selecting beneficial genes and eliminating others. We've done this with grapes for centuries.  We've done this with dogs for centuries. We've done this for ages before Mendel even discovered the genotype in the mid 19th century. This is another case of the belief that anything that happens through scientific study or in a lab is destructive.

If I had cows, I would give them rBST for multiple reasons.  A) rBST treated meat and dairy have been independently shown from health organizations around the world to have no negative effect on human health, B) the higher IGF protein concentration, which is the only legitimized numerically significant concern, is denatured in the stomach and therefore not metabolized. Given both these points and that the cows produce more milk, this would mean less cows for the same amount of milk production. Which I think is significantly more beneficial to society given...

Rearing cattle produces more greenhouse gases than driving cars, UN report warns

rBST treated meat and dairy is simply NOT dangerous to humans. Other countries have banned it not because of evidence for human danger, but for statistically (drastically) significant increases in animal welfare concerns. Personally, I don't really give two shits about that aspect. We've killed stuff our entire existence, I don't really think we suddenly need to gain a conscience.

I find it interesting that you like calling me paranoid, sensational, and a "conspiracy" person. That's the easiest way to ignore possibilities, huh? Why am I paranoid for wanting to use natural remedies and not wanting to take pharmaceuticals which admittedly kill hundreds of thousands of people each year?

My comments on sensationalism and paranoia are not based on your beliefs, but the supports of them. Everyone is entitled to beliefs, but suggesting them to people as fact without proof is both irresponsible and dangerous. Subsequently claiming things with statistically proven benefits as being harmful is, again, data mining and selective presentation. Refer to my comments about my quality of life and epilepsy. I've said multiple multiple multiple times that I'm not ignoring possibilities, and that I support further research. But many remedies HAVE been researched and shown to be statistically insignificant if not harmful.

There is no question that deaths exist from pharmaceuticals. But that number means nothing until you compare it to something. If you only compare it to epilepsy, it would account for a death rate of 3.3%. Now how about factoring in the rest of the diseases being treated? Compare it to the amount of people taking at least one prescription medication, it's .06% of them. This number still doesn't even include hospital visits, of which 75% involve some sort of medication. That would drive that percentage DRASTICALLY lower.

Pharmaceutical companies list the side effects due to liability. Under law, they are responsible for the people taking it. I bet 99% of prescription drugs list "death" as a side effect, just so they can't get sued if someone dies from banging their head against a wall and the family subsequently blames it on the drug. Businesses making homeopathic remedies are significantly less liable due to the fact that they aren't FDA approved. The "take at your own risk" absolves them of everything except negligent production process incidents, hence no reason to say "may cause death".

Additional side note: The global prescription drug market share was $340b in 2006.  The alternative health care market share was $60b, which doesn't include $20b in dietary supplements (which is all the types of vitamins/herbs/minerals/botanicals). It's not as if the alternative industry is exempt from profiteering or manipulation.

[cjp_piano]

Obviously we live in 2 different realities, which is fine. Thanks for the enlightenment. Now on with piano . . 

[mahlermaniac]

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

While arthritis may become more common as people age, it's hardly a given that they will have it. the fact that many people have it is unlikely to reassure or comfort the OP, and you were rather insensitive.

[kaney2021]

American Arthritis Foundation is the leading and most viable non-profit health organization that handles arthritis. They also sponsor all sort of arthritis studies to treat arthritis in addition to make available educational information on arthritis to patients.