Is the Medical Community screaming? "Saw Palmetto ... NO!!!!!"

Article title: "Saw Palmetto No Benefit as Prostate Remedy"
Date: September 27, 2011

This article was 'desktop published' in such a way as to spark my interest because of the associated articles presented along side it.... but first:

The fruit of the saw palmetto tree does not relieve symptoms of an enlarged prostate, even when men take the herbal supplement in very high doses, a new study shows.

Interestingly, (to me anyway) the following paragraph beings like this (bold is mine):

The research is published Sept. 28, 2011, in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Now if this is not an indication that the AMA along with their media associates are coordinating public opinion campaigns. I don't know what is..... reporting on an unpublished study a day before it's official release seems... disingenuous.

The bias becomes even more evident when you consider this:

Many older U.S. men take saw palmetto extract in an attempt to reduce bothersome symptoms of a swollen prostate, including frequent urination and a sense of urgency. Its use in Europe is even more widespread because doctors often recommend saw palmetto over more traditional drug treatments.

I can hear Big Pharma and the AMA at their golf outings now "Damn those stupid Europeans! How are we supposed to make money if they keep providing remedies that we don't control?"

((Don't worry Big Pharma and AMA, you've got the transnational commerce bunch on your side ... enter the Codex Alimentarius))

Here's the kicker:

Results of the new study may settle an ongoing debate over the effectiveness of saw palmetto for a condition known as benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Earlier studies of the supplement have produced conflicting results, and none have evaluated the benefits of saw palmetto in high doses.

There was a time when every enlargement of a man's prostate seemed to be billed as an emergent medical situation - involving surgery and petrochemical drug treatment..... the word "benign" couldn't be evoked, because it didn't engender the necessary fear in the patient to force the patient to surrender their judgement to a medical professional's agenda.... revenue.

Why one would have to necessarily study "high doses" as if this were a pharmaceutical I can't fathom ... but I will allow them the liberty of going down any stray path they choose.... in other words, whatever.

In the current study, however, men took up to three times the standard dose of saw palmetto.
"Now we know that even very high doses of saw palmetto make absolutely no difference," says co-author Gerald Andriole, MD, the Robert K. Royce Distinguished Professor and chief of urologic surgery at Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. "Men should not spend their money on this herbal supplement as a way to reduce symptoms of enlarged prostate because it clearly does not work any better than a sugar pill."

The researchers found that among men who took saw palmetto, prostate problems improved slightly but not more than in men taking a placebo.

"We commonly see this in clinical trials," Andriole explains. "Patients often report an improvement in symptoms because they are taking something, even if it is a placebo. But in this study, there was no benefit to taking saw palmetto over the placebo."

Unfortunately the medical professional seems to have forgotten tot mention that this placebo effect has been seen when compared to drugs they claim "do" work - as advertised. Nor does he mention the ongoing mystery behind the placebo effect; or that certain placebo studies provide baffling cures and improvements where none was thought to be possible... by their wisdom.

Several approved medications, such as alpha-blockers* and 5-alpha reductase inhibitors**, are available to successfully treat the condition.

* - known side effects of alpha-blockers: Runny nose, Dizziness , Decrease in semen, Headache

** "common" side effects include impotence, decreased libido, and decreased ejaculate volume. Rare ADRs include breast tenderness and enlargement, and allergic reaction.

Evidently they know best, eh?

So who sponsored this monumental work of unbiased scientific inquiry beholden to no agenda, political or otherwise?

National Institutes of Health (NIH);
the National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases;
the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine;
and the NIH Office of Dietary Supplements.

Saw palmetto fruit extract and matching placebo were donated by Rottapharm/Madaus, Cologne, Germany. The study was conducted under an Investigational New Drug Application from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

I don't know that these last two items ... who "donated" the saw palmetto, and what makes a "investigational new drug application" a 'specific' kind of study, actually means in terms of what was offered up... but along side this article was a list of other articles recommended by the publisher.... check it out....



Do you get the impression they really, REALLY, want to make a point about not using saw palmetto? Not that it's "bad for you" which they haven't claimed.... I mean for goodness sake! How many anti-saw palmetto articles can you publish in one day? Their point is akin to screaming at the top of your lungs from the mountain....



Thanks for entertaining my musings... Remember: none of what you see here constitutes any kind of medical advice or contradiction to 'evidence-based medicine,' it's just food for thought (the kind that hasn't been banned by the Codex yet )

Totally agree with your perspective.

If we all did what "they" suggest we do to stay in "good health", we will all end up very ill and eventually get cancer.
It seems dying of cancer has become "natural causes" and everyone seems ok with that.

If we all did the opposite of what the top medical industries suggest, we'd live longer lives IMHO. They want to make profits off our treatments, break us down then score profits on the treatments while keeping cheap, natural cures/beneficial foods illegal and out of our reach... not a theory, it's how this really goes.

reply to post by Maxmars


Doubt we will even have a choice soon now, they will take all these supplements off the market!

The medical industry wants to ensure we don't waste our money? Really? That's news.

I remember reading something about the FDA wanting to take all vitamins and supplements off the market. I'm curious if this "study" is going to be the first of many used to justify banning these products. Why not regulate first?

I can only add that a family member of mine who is about 70 has been using Saw Palmetto for about 10 years, and unlike his parent and many other men at that age, he has never had prostate problems.
However, we only consider it a preventative supplement, since zinc is deficient in many modern diets.
I'm not sure about treating prostate problems that have already developed, although I guess it's never too late to start.
He swears by one formulation, and won't take any other brand.
Apparently not all Saw Palmetto is equal.

But I see a constant barrage of sudden criticism against some herbs that are clearly effective, and virtually every week on our News24 another one is questioned.
First it was Milk Thistle for liver complaints, then it was Valerian and Sceletium.
I can only say that Valerian tincture helps put me to sleep, and even a friend of mine who is usually on strong sleeping pills finds it works like a bomb when he comes to visit for sleepovers.
The whole tone of such articles does make me fear for the future of some old tried and tested remedies.

Oh Maxmars....there isn't anything out of the ordinary with the media writing about an article PRIOR to a studys publication. It happens all the time. Certain members of journals and media receive prepublished copies of studies every month.

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


Yeah... I figured it would probably turn up a 'standard practice' (thanks for confirming that for me).

it still sort of irks me... writing and publishing an article on the 27th about and article that "was published on the 28th"... seems like somewhere in that practice, the idea of genuine journalism lies bleeding on the floor.....

I agree with you, sort of. My beef is bipolar:

A: I, personally, have observed a huge disconnect between the journal writer's and experiementer's interpretations and findings....and that of the media. For instance: If, in a study, A is associated with B, in the media...A causes B. It's pretty effing sad.

B: If articles are published before studies, it doesn't allow for people like me to check the validity of the material in the article and to check if their is any bias.

That is all.

Tried it for BPH.

It does not work in any dosage.