Originally posted by Phage
Do you have any idea how many products of "Big Pharma" are synthesized versions of natural compounds?
It's disgusting that these 'Big Pharma' can prevent mainstream science from looking into natural solutions that could help people all over
Interesting that your highly biased source failed to mention that the study involved such a synthesized compound. Interesting that your highly biased
source failed to mention that the natural compound is not really useful. Interesting that your highly biased source didn't mention that the
impressive results were found with the synthesized compound.
However, triptolide is poorly soluble in water, limiting its clinical use. We therefore synthesized a water-soluble analog of triptolide, named
So, as in most cases, a natural compound found to be somewhat effective is used as the starting point to produce something that may be very
Together, our results suggest that Minnelide shows promise as a potent chemotherapeutic agent against pancreatic cancer, and support the
evaluation of Minnelide in clinical trials against this deadly disease.
edit on 10/19/2012 by Phage because: (no reason given)
While the source might be biased -- are we sure that the "process" for making the active ingredient water soluble wasn't ALREADY something an
herbalist might do? You know, like make a tea, or dissolve it in alcohol, fermentation or combine with a lipid?
It sounds like these studies are headed towards medicine -- but is that only going to result in some patented, expensive compound?
I can see how a lot of Bias and "fear of power" colors people's opinions of Big Pharma or Big Anything -- but let's put this in perspective. Since
2000, we've seen a 19% increase in "survival of cancer patients"
-- however, the
problem with these statistics is that testing reveals ever more people GETTING Cancer, and of course finding it earlier. However, I remember watching
a leading cancer specialist on a trade show about a decade ago, that the REAL survival rate of patients across all cancers, had only gone up 1.5%.
When my own wife got cancer, I can tell you, that even though I'm no stranger to statistics and how you get valid and invalid numbers -- I couldn't
make anything out of the "success in cancer" rates. Because you had a 75% chance of a 5 year survival given X cancer of Y severity treated Z way.
But what is the Survival rate of people who never got diagnosed but WOULD have been positive for cancer? We don't know. We only know that WHEN a
Cancer is diagnosed, they've been really successful "CURING" it with Breast Cancer. However -- women get diagnosed much, much earlier now and in
So are we getting MORE cancer, or are they just finding it, waving their version of the Medical Magic Wand, and saying "you are cured" and you live
10 years and drop dead -- just like you would have if there were no TREATMENT to begin with? After years of this -- I don't really have a clue.
We might be better off banning GM foods, or processed foods, or ending all nuclear and Coal use because there is no possible way that we can know for
sure what is causing more cancer. Every year there are thousands of chemicals invented and put in use with little or not testing at all. People assume
all sorts of safety standards and regulations apply, but if it's not DIRECTLY put in your food or a drug -- then not that much.
>> I can really understand the cynicism. And the people on the conspiracy side can be myopic -- but those on the "This is MODERN Medicine side" can
be just as myopic and support all sorts of drugs, treatments and vaccines with NO PROVEN efficacy. There have been scores of expensive drugs that were
later proven to have less influence than the placebo effect -- and continually, people have amnesia about the prior promises and always push these
errors as "something that just happened in the Old days." One day, these days will be the old days, and they may look back at our practices as
little better than injecting Mercury (like they did in the Old Days).