Natural remedies "seldom effective"

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by CosmicEgg

 

No, you don't recall correctly. He stated he regretted pursuing the alternative treatments.

If you take that to mean that he thought he lived longer with the alternative treatments, then so be it.

A statement he's supposed to have made, that ONLY comes out after he's DEAD? Hmmm...

Truth of the matter: Steve Jobs dead at 56, his life ended prematurely by chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cancer

Steve Jobs reportedly underwent both. His chemotherapy treatments at the Standard Cancer Center are now well known (www.marksmarketanalysis.com...), and his secret radiotherapy treatments in Switzerland have now been made public by former Apple executive Jerry York.

Jerry York confided in Fortune Magazine about Steve Jobs' secret flight to Switzerland to receive radiotherapy treatment for his cancer (tech.fortune.cnn.com...). Fortune Magazine kept this secret until Jerry York died in March of 2010 (en.wikipedia.org...)), after which Fortune Magazine decided its confidentiality agreement with York no longer applied, and it published details about Jobs' secret visits to Switzerland (gawker.com...).

Fortune Magazine also repeats another fact about Steve Jobs that rarely appears in the press: Namely, that Steve Jobs underwent a secret liver transplant which raised eyebrows among many who wondered why a member of the wealthy business elite could receive a liver transplant essentially on demand while everybody else had to wait on a long transplant list (articles.cnn.com...).

In January of this year, Roc4Life.com reported:

"Jobs' medical leave is due to cancer, but no one knows whether it stems from his 2004 battle with pancreatic cancer or complications from a secret liver transplant in 2009. According to recently deceased off-the-record source from Apple's Jerry York, Jobs took an unpublicized flight to Switzerland in 2009 to undergo unusual treatment at the University of Basel. Switzerland's University of Basel known for their radiotherapy treatments for neuroendocrine cancer and it's unavailability in the U.S. Experts say Jobs' pancreatic cancer has a history of reappearing and spreading to vital organs at a slow-growing pace, which probably explains the medical leave."

In other words, there is no question that Steve Jobs underwent multiple conventional cancer treatments, including surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy.

Learn more: www.naturalnews.com...

I serious dislike DISINFO agents!

reply to post by bEE65

Natural simply means as nature intended...

That's a subjective concept if there's ever been one.

If everybody ate food that was not adulterated by means of iradiation,processing .. pasturising to name but a few ,then we would see more people in better health.

Here's where you need to stop the mindless drivel and start applying a logical thought process.

We adulterate food all the time when we cook it. Cooking food causes changes to the protein structure, destroys enzymes and many compounds both of benefit and harm to the body. There are several plants out there that will make you horribly sick if you attempt to eat them without cooking... and a few that are the opposite.

We cook food, though, to do one of two things - make it easier to chew/digest, and to destroy harmful bacteria and parasites (especially in meats).

Food is treated for two very similar reasons, to kill harmful bacteria/parasites, or to prevent it from decaying (both from bacteria and from its own biochemistry).

Packing foods with preservatives (one of the more archaic ways being to extract all the moisture using copious amounts of salt) is done out of necessity and practicality. You have to be able to evaluate the costs/risks/gains of utilizing certain methods (or consuming foods treated with them).

Sure - raw honey is awesome. You won't ever be able to get it in your local supermarket, though. It doesn't exactly look appetizing and will ferment in short order (due to all of the enzymes people like to rave about). It will also begin to crystallize as a super-saturated mixture.

Natural remedies used in Herbalism are prepared using plants .... Plants used to treat the body can be very effective because they are easily assimulated.In other words.... your immune system recognises them as friend rather than foe.

This was cute. But inaccurate, to say the least.

Plants are biochemical constructs. Your body reacts to them in accordance with the laws governing chemistry. There's no magic. Your body doesn't understand whether it was a plant that grew out of the ground or one that was 'printed' using very advanced technology.

The advantage to using whole plants and/or foods is because of the way nutrients are 'packaged' in a plant's biology (and the other compounds that come along with the subject nutrient in the plant). Many vitamins are more readily absorbed from fruits and vegetables than they are from vitamin supplements.

When it comes to treating medical issues, however - it is not recommended to use herbs. The reason for this is very simple - a plant is a living thing, much like a person. The exact amount of active ingredients in an herb vary based on the soil, the part of the plant used, the amount of sunlight it receives each day, temperature, etc. Even the time of day you harvest the plant will influence the amount of active ingredients in a plant. (Herbs have the highest oil concentrations just before daybreak; fruits have the highest sugar and nutrient content just before dusk)

It's one thing to use mints, garlic, and other common herbs to address irritating medical issues. It's another to start dragging out Digitalis and Solanaceae to treat critical medical issues. Both of those plants have some powerful active ingredients in them that can save your life or take it in a heartbeat (quite literally).

Hell, most of the houseplants people have in their homes are irritants or contain compounds that will slowly destroy your liver, kidneys, or other vital organs if you were to consume them.

Tomatoes contain compounds that will irritate people who suffer from frequent migraines (they are, after all, a member of the Nightshade family - Solanaceae). Potatoes are potentially lethal if you eat them while green (another member of the Nightshade family). All Solanaceae have alkaloids that react with aluminum, and will leach large amounts of it from aluminum cookware (tomatoes, potatoes, peppers, eggplant, etc). Aluminum consumption has been correlated to Alzheimer's - and it is not recommended you use aluminum cookware at all... but especially not with Nightshades.

Which brings me to tea - tea contains large amounts of fluoride, most of it contained within aluminum-fluoride compounds (which comes as a relatively recent discovery after two men in Argentina came up with skeletal fluorosis after drinking nearly two gallons of tea a day for over twenty years).

This "fluffy" image of nature needs to stop.

This "It's natural, and therefor good for you" is also stupid, and needs to stop.

All of you preaching this nonsense need to go grab a few books on herbs and herbalism. Nature will # you up if you don't give it a critical eye and some respect.

reply to post by SpaceJockey1


Yes, he had the traditional treatments. But he felt that he waited too long before trying them, instead opting for natural cures. He felt if he would have done the mainstream treatments first he would have lived longer.

Listen, I'm not saying this of my own accord. This was in his book. If you don't believe the book then that's fine. It makes no difference to me.

And yes, the book came out after his death. I don't see a conspiracy in that.

As for calling me a disinfo agent. Please. What disinfo have I given? I'm just relaying what Steve Jobs said in his book. Go buy it and verify that all I've said is correct if it bothers you that much.

Bottom line is if I had a serious illness I would not rely on natural or homeopathic remedies.

Originally posted by TheComte
reply to post by SpaceJockey1

 

Yes, he had the traditional treatments. But he felt that he waited too long before trying them, instead opting for natural cures. He felt if he would have done the mainstream treatments first he would have lived longer.

Indeed. He spent 9 months on alternatives.

His cancer was detected at a stage where mainstream medicine would have almost certainly cured it - instead he went for alternative woo, and by the time he figured those were useless the disease was too far gone for mainstream treatment.

Alternative medicine and the death of Steve Jobs

failed treatments including acupuncture, herbal, diet and fruit juice therapy and spiritual consultations.

Had he had surgery immediately instead of trying these for 9 months there is a good chance he would have survived.

As the article says:

Chemo and surgery are expensive and take a physical and emotional toll on the body. However, many of these therapies are proven to extend life, whereas alternative treatments are not.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


I saw this yesterday and thought of your thread.

Cancer Sell is a documentary broadcast by Aljazeera, and features an undercover cancer-survivor in the "alternative cancer clinics" along the US border in Mexico.

I won't take sides; just thought the material might be relevant to the thread.



I think if you're dying in any case according to science, and you have the vast amounts of cash, then it's your right to choose to die there.
I suppose the difference is that they don't come to die, they're looking for hope: sadly mostly false hope.

Originally posted by Pardon?
reply to post by Nana2

 

Just bear in mind that before doctors and pharma etc, a human's life expectancy was probably only half of what it is now. Remember, people often used to die from an infected tooth or a small cut back then so comparing the natural remedies to what we have now in that respect is pretty much invalid.

edit on 17/1/12 by Pardon? because: (no reason given)

I don't think it is invalid at all. Guess it depends entirely upon perspective. Somehow the human race has managed to survive thousands of years before the invention of modern "medicine" (and I use the term loosely). How long their life expectancy was is not relevant. Because a person lives longer yet still on BOATLOADS of pills, etc , basically being artificially "maintained" to stay alive, is that living? I suppose to that person it is.

However, people DID live long lives when there was no modern medicine, because probably the last generation who used nature alone for illnesses was my grandmother's. ANd she died in her 90's. Her mother before her was over 100 when she died.

We still have infant deaths, we still have people who sometimes die of infections, we still have heart attacks. The difference now is the huge surge in major illnesses like cancer! Cancer was nearly unheard of in my grandmother's generation. Something is causing these rises in such serious illnesses. Could it be modern medicine? (Fixing something but causing even more problems?)

Point being, exactly WHICH is the lessor of the two evils?

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


That doesn't make sense to me....Sure, some ''remedies'' doesn't work at all....It's just greedy men trying to earn a quick dollar by promoting something as being a ''natural wonder drug''.
But the human race has used medicine LONG before pharmaceutical companies started making medicine. Honey was used as to combat a lot of things. It can even be applied upon burned skin.
A LOT of real natural medicine exists. You just have to filter out the BS first, when looking for it on the internet

Of course, not all new medicine is bad either. You just have to extra careful and look at any kind of side effects this drug might have

Originally posted by Boomer1941
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

What else would you expect a doctor to say, natural remedies take money out of their pockets as well as Big Pharma. Alot of the drugs they peddle are made up in part of natural ingredients.

Exactly! For example, before aspirin was invented in the form we know today, willow tree bark was used, it is still a main ingredient in aspirin. Sambucol, a popular flu remedy contains elderberry, which was used first as a flu remedy, and so forth.

Originally posted by My.mind.is.mine
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

Well, from a user of natural remedies and ex chemical medication user, I testify that they work, and work well. Just because they don't work "fast" doesn't mean they don't work well. And after that, they go right to work as a preventative. Humans are a "now" species, and it just don't work that way. Come to my home, and you won't even find an advil anywhere in the building.

Patience is a virtue

edit on 15-1-2012 by My.mind.is.mine because: (no reason given)

I concur. I have used plants belonging to the cannabaceae family for donkeys years and I support the fact that THEY DO WORK. For doctors to use such 'blanket' tactics is unethical - and it means more people paying more money to have yet more and more expensive "government approved" treatments.

Haha, its funny because the majority of people will now consider 'natural' products as scams, resulting in them buying the pharmaceutical companies drugs and treatments... and in the end making the rich richer and poor poorer.... (yet again....)

Well done world.

Peace out

Kluute

reply to post by TheComte

My aunt, stepmother, mother in law, father in law, cousin, several area locals, adults and kids,and I could go on, all did the chemo/radiation. They are all dead.
Mother in law did the chemo/radiation and did live a few more years. Her kidneys and other internal organs turned to stone due to the treatments. So the treatment killed her.
Friend: Breast cancer: chemo/radiation: Caused RA. She has no immune system to speak of and suffers every day in pain. She has been using home remedies to treat herself and has had great success.
Not to mention the horrible sickness, the hair loss and torture they went through to try and live.
Your point was?
Only one thing sure in this life, the minute you are born you will surely die. I can't afford to get sick as we do not have health insurance and priced it way over our means..I have to have the internet to look up and use home remedies. Some work and I have first hand seen these things work. Others do not.
Now if they would get rid of the chemicals in our food, our lands, our soaps, our water.........there would be a good prevention there.

reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul


That is a matter of opinion. Besides which, it spreads to the liver generally in the late stages of the disease. Early surgery is no guarantee of anything, as many deceased ex-suffers would tell you if they could..but they're dead too.

See, the point isn't that natural remedies are ineffective. The point is that standard medicine isn't effective either. You win some, you lose some. Standard medicine only trumpets their wins.

My daughter had chronic pyelonephritis starting from about six years of age. We don't know why it happened but she had it almost continuously for two and a half years. Finally, her urologist wanted to surgically remove a huge part of her bladder and do only god-knows-what to her kidneys. Their medicines simply weren't working. She lived on antibiotics and anti-spasmodics for her bladder. I walked out of that hospital that day with my daughter in tow. We went back six months later.

In those six months, I had pulled her off the pharmaceuticals and given her only cranberry concentrate capsules in lieu. Nothing else special was done. At the end of the six months her urine was clean. Her bladder was clean. Her kidneys were clean. And she's been right as rain since.

They are effective. Know this now. Standard medicine has its place, but that's not universal. No, far from it.

Originally posted by denynothing
reply to post by soficrow

 

No that statement is a direct response to this thread, this is exactly what the quote is talking about. .... So the quote is telling us to trust our doctors and not Joe blow on conspiracy.com

I got that, and I don't agree. Doctors do not study nutrition or natural remedies - at best the topics are covered in passing. Worse, the current generation of doctors is educated by Big Pharma and others with clear and overriding financial interests. Not at all balanced - and definitely NOT guaranteed "reliable." However...

My concern was with the statement, "the Internet is not reliable." My response stands:

"The Internet" is not reliable?!? Like this site: PubMed? Or this one: Environmental Health Perspectives? How 'bout the Lancet or the Institute of Medicine publications? All suspect?

"The Internet" allows thinking people to do their own research and analysis, learn, grow, and come to their own conclusions. Often, the information we find and conclusions we draw do NOT support the corporate program. so it's Open Access that's the problem here - and free thought and speech - NOT the "unreliable" Internet.

I agree, we need to choose reliable sources. I disagree that "our doctors" are Gods, or any kind of ultimate authority. If we're lucky, we find a good doctor who can be our chief advisor - but sole source and absolute authority? Not for me, thanks.

reply to post by Kllyblvn


I thought my point was pretty clear. I can tell you what it wasn't.

It wasn't that chemotherapy works every time. I'm sorry that your loved ones died, but they had cancer. And that was what killed them. For you to try to blame chemotherapy for that, well, I hope people see through that kind of BS. And if they don't, it doesn't bother me one bit.

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

I REALLY get tired of heating this:

"The problem is people go on the internet, which is not reliable."

"The Internet" is not reliable?!? Like this site: PubMed? Or this one: Environmental Health Perspectives? How 'bout the Lancet or the Institute of Medicine publications? All suspect?

how often do people consult those when looking for alternative remedies??

Pah indeed.....

I do - all the time. Although I recognize that most people get their scientific information from Big Pharma's drug ads on TV. Still, it's amazing how many "alternative remedies" are the subject of scientific study. It's also clear which doctors do their homework by what "remedies" they recommend. You may know that Vitamin D is big now, along with cinnamon and turmeric, for example. All proven effective. On the other hand, a lack of credible research suggests the substance has been overlooked, or is off the wall - indicating caution is required in tracking sources.

.....Here's a great little article from ScienceBasedMedicine on the dearth of evidence supporting broad claims for colloidal silver: HiHo Silver. Compare to another overview from National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

as for the regulated/unregulated arg
www.fourwinds10.net...

One such example involves hundreds of Chinese pharmaceutical plants. After creating and shipping a tainted batch of the blood thinner known as heparin to the United States, 81 people died as a result of taking the drug. What’s truly amazing, however, is the number of individuals who die on a yearly basis from overall pharmaceutical deaths. As fatality numbers skyrocket from properly taking pharmaceuticals drugs, the death toll has now outnumbered traffic fatalities according to the most recent statistics.

You may think that many supplements and regular pain relief drugs are exempt from this faulty manufacturing, but that is in fact untrue.

Amazingly, nearly all the aspirin and vitamin C consumed in the U.S. is made in Chinese plants that never see an inspector. Thankfully, a solution does exist. It is important to pick only high quality supplements that utilize food-based ingredients and are devoid of toxic fillers and synthetic ingredients. This is a rule that can be applied to virtually all food products and nutritional items — your health is worth more than saving a few dollars on cheap supplements that could result in extensive medial costs down the road.

this brings us to my favorite quote
"If you don't become your own Dr. by the time you reach 40, you will never make 50"
Mark Twain

Originally posted by Aim64C




Sure - raw honey is awesome. You won't ever be able to get it in your local supermarket, though. It doesn't exactly look appetizing and will ferment in short order (due to all of the enzymes people like to rave about). It will also begin to crystallize as a super-saturated mixture.

Actually honey has a really long shelf life naturally without any help and raw honey is for sale at most grocery stores. I was told it is best to consume local honey because it can strengthen your immune system to local allergens, honey from a far away source will only help against allergens from it's source.

I do think that there are a lot of natural remedies that are expensive and ineffective, there still are many natural remedies that are effective and possibly an alternative to modern medicine.

Like many of my fellow ATS members I find any study funded by big pharma to be fishy.

reply to post by CosmicEgg


I'm not drawn to medicine for the paycheck though I didn't grow up with that much disposable income so I can't scoff at the money. With that said though, medicine is the best combination of scientific mysteries and helping people. We are all called to help people by way of the lord, this is the way I see that I can be most effective. I love science because I love the mystery and I love the feeling that at the end of the day I actually learned something. Compared to an english class where I just get told if I wrote a good paper or not. Sadly you and I will not see eye to eye on this issue. I believe that after 4 years of undergrad and then 4 years of medical school plus a residency, a doctor is the most qualified person to talk to me about my health situation. I am saddened by your pathology experience, but some doctors have ego's, I'll admit that right away. However I can understand when they have gone through so much school and to be told by a patient that they don't believe in modern medicine and would rather try untested scientifically speaking remedies. Would be a little unnerving, it'd be like an electrician getting told off by a customer with no experience in electrical work that they could do it better. All in all medical science does work, and has been proven to work. Some drugs not as much as others but millions of people will claim that they're lives were saved by simply taking an anti-biotic to curb an infection.

reply to post by denynothing


Talk to me again about this when you know something about the practice. If you say you want to do this to do humanity a good turn, I can assure you now that you will last no longer than I did. Once you have to watch horrendous things happen - and to do them yourself - your tune will change, young friend. If God is in your heart, you will not be able to do what is expected. It's a dirty business, and business has no place in healthcare.

That now said, I wish you no luck whatsoever in your endeavor. I hope you fail miserably. At least then you will know your eyes and heart are open. With that, I wish you the very best of luck.

reply to post by jrod

Actually honey has a really long shelf life naturally without any help and raw honey is for sale at most grocery stores. I was told it is best to consume local honey because it can strengthen your immune system to local allergens, honey from a far away source will only help against allergens from it's source.

This really depends. "Raw" honey is not sold in grocery stores. Most often, it has been pasteurized at the very least, and filtered (though mostly to remove bits of bee wing, comb, and other things people might find to be a turn-off).

I used to work with a guy who had his own bees and made Mead. Mead is made from fermented honey. Raw honey, as you get it out of the comb, ferments. The enzymes in the honey break down the sugars into a peroxide, which is what gives honey the antimicrobial and antifungal properties. Over time, the honey will ferment. You're looking at less than a year's time frame. Which is why it's pasteurized to destroy those enzymes.

In either case - most people end up heating the honey in some way when they consume it - which destroys the enzymes. Once it crystallizes and you heat it to return it to normal, the enzymes are gone.

Honey is filtered to prevent reactions to allergens in the honey. I suppose one could make the argument that the honey is a "tempering through exposure" treatment approach... but you're more likely to have allergy problems consuming raw honey than you are commercial honey.

I do think that there are a lot of natural remedies that are expensive and ineffective, there still are many natural remedies that are effective and possibly an alternative to modern medicine.

There are several problems with this line of thought.

For starters - the illusion that "modern" and "natural" medicine are competing or exclusive forces. Each have their place and relevance.

Another is the subject mentalities. Take your average "natural remedy" enthusiast - they are more likely to avoid destructive diets (provided they aren't doing some bizarre 'nutrition' therapy) and to engage in activities generally seen as being healthy (exercise, for example). That mindset, alone, is going to respond to any treatment ('natural' or otherwise) far better than someone who wants a pill to pop so they can get back to the way things were.

Simple dietary changes would help many avoid chronic irritation (headaches, acne, itchiness, etc). It's not going to be a cure-all solution - but it can make a world of difference and greatly reduce how often they consider reaching for a drug (pill or herbal) to drive the symptoms away.

Both of my room-mates suffer from frequent incontinence; one because he hardly eats any solid food and the other because he's obese and doesn't want to eat anything that takes longer than ten seconds of preparation.

They simply don't want to change their eating habits to resolve the problem (or, likely, something they don't even realize -is- a problem). On the other hand... they don't reach for pills to solve it, either....

Even then, there are mild 'treatments' for mild problems. Peppermint teas are great for indigestion, irritated throat/sinus, and respiratory problems. You don't need to make a tincture out of it (horribly concentrated teas) to be effective, either.

Of course - Doctors have to be careful what advice they give patients - lest they lose their license (doctors cannot, legally, prescribe something to treat your case that hasn't been approved to treat it by regulatory agencies). And companies cannot market or advertise herbal remedies as being treatments for any condition not approved by the FDA.

But, yes, a lot of day-to-day not-very-critical nuisance problems can be effectively trunced with an intelligent blend of food and herbs. There's a candy ... forget what it is (I want to say it is Sassafras) that has a local anesthetic - excellent for sore throats. Teas - and even simple compresses are reasonable.

However... If you've got cancer.... expecting acupuncture, witchdoctors, or a some mystical flower to cure you... you're likely going to be sorely disappointed. That said - natural remedies should not be overlooked as complements to 'modern medicine.'

Originally posted by VikingDude
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul

 

That doesn't make sense to me....Sure, some ''remedies'' doesn't work at all....It's just greedy men trying to earn a quick dollar by promoting something as being a ''natural wonder drug''.

did you realise that you have just said it doesn't make sense...and then point out why it does make sense?