Herbal Healing

[jambo372]

I'd just like to know what people here believe about herbal medicine if anything.

Supposedly there is proof available for the following claims :

Ginger and Galangal root can help deal with travel sickness.

St. John's Wort is an effective anti-depressant.

Extracts from both Garlic and Grapefruit seeds have shown to be active against many bacterial infections and Garlic extracts have cured wound infections due to MRSA in trials.

Mugwort helps treat seizures.

Calendula and Aloe Vera help many skin complaints including Eczema, dermatitis, sunburn, rashes and infected wounds.

Thyme essential oil is 20 times stronger than Phenol.

A cocktail of Cider Vinegar and Honey can cure a cough.

Vinegar can treat numerous complaints.

Milk-Thistle may help prevent cancer.

Juniper boiled in water or taken as Gin can help cure urinary tract infections.

I just wanted to know if anybody on this forum believed in any Herbal cures or if you think they're pathetic. I believe in many of them.

[Grendel]

Well, first -it's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of scientific testing.

Secondly -it's not an all or nothing propostion, that herbal meds work or they do not (false dichotomy). A few do, most don't.

The fact is that herbs cure nothing per se, it's the chemicals and/or compounds found in some herbs that offer some remedies, to varying degrees of success. The roots (heh, heh, pun intended) of medicine and pharmacology are found in extraction of medicines from biological and mineral sources.

As for the above listed claims, most of them are nonsense, some are not, and I'll be honest and admit I've little interest in discerning one from another. On the internet, one can find dozens of "studies" that appear to establish virtually any herbal claim out there. I'll use one of the above listed as an example -according to the testing done by labs known for reliability and scientific expertise, St. John's Wort has no more than a placebic effect on depression, but, nonetheless, one can find dozens of studies from lesser known labs that say otherwise.

There are subtleties of detail that apply if one wanted to really get into it. Efficacy of medicinal applications depends as much on dosage as on type of active chemical or compound. A Tylenol or two (acetaminophen) usually cures a headache. A dozen or two and your liver may go on strike. A teaspoon of sugar sweetens your tea, but go ahead and eat a pound of it and see what happens.

[geni]

I don't know about all of them but







St. John's Wort is an effective anti-depressant.

Probably not

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15323598


There hass ben a load of conterversy over this. At the moment I feel that the evidence favors the nay side


Extracts from both Garlic and Grapefruit seeds have shown to be active against many bacterial infections and Garlic extracts have cured wound infections due to MRSA in trials.


Probably


Thyme essential oil is 20 times stronger than Phenol.


dunno but the comparison to phenol is odd since we stoped using that years ago



Check www.pubmed.com for some usefull data but to be honest the history of herbal medcine is that in many cases there is no effect and where there is an effect it is hugly overstated.

[Tom Morris]

There are also a number of herbs and 'natural' (whatever that is) remedies which contain a chemical that is effacious, but could be removed and 'synthetically' produced in a pill to reduce the side effects of the herb.

Herbs are no more or less effacious than anything else - you have to test the chemicals inside them to see.

[El Greco]

Pharmacognosy is the science that deals with the medicinal properties of substances of natural (usually plant) origin. Many plants exhibit such properties and many pharmaceutical companies have used plants as raw material for their medicines. The main problem with popular herbal medicine is that the concetration and even the presence of a specific compound in the plant cannot be guaranteed. Certain subspecies of the plant may be completely inactive. Other times it all depends on the season of the crop, the soil etc. So you'd have to use something you can be sure of, like standardized preparations of a herb.

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
I'd just like to know what people here believe about herbal medicine if anything.

By family, one-quarter of the modern pharmacopea is "herbal" in the sense that it uses substances that were originally discovered in plants. Examples include penicillin and related antibiotics, digitalis, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs such as aspirin, opiates for anesthesia and analgesics (morphine, codeine, hydrocodone, oxycodone, etc.), cocaine-derivatives such as benzocaine, xylocaine, etc.

In most cases, the substances are refined or modified in order to make them safer and/or more effective.

However, when this happens, when a drug enters standard pharmaceutical practice, people stop calling it "herbal."

So, in practice, what is left that is still called "herbal" are things that either don't work, that have a marginal effect, that "treat" non-diseases, that are inferior to existing products, that are commonly recommended anyway, or that treat things that naturally go away.

It's quite unlikely that there are any common substances remaining that have not been examined out the wazoo for active ingredients. As for the rest, well, pharmaceutical companies routinely finance botanical expeditions into remote places to find something they can use.

Going through your list:

Ginger and Galangal root can help deal with travel sickness.

"Travel sickness" isn't an illness. If you like to drink something made of ginger and galangal root after a journey, and you find the act to have a calming effect, go ahead and do it. Others may like a cup of tea or a beer.

St. John's Wort is an effective anti-depressant.

As has been pointed out, probably not.

Extracts from both Garlic and Grapefruit seeds have shown to be active against many bacterial infections and Garlic extracts have cured wound infections due to MRSA in trials.

Probably. It's hard to imagine much living for very long in garlic juice. But there are much better ways of treating bacterial infections.

Mugwort helps treat seizures.

This is the first I've heard of this. I rather doubt it.

Calendula and Aloe Vera help many skin complaints including Eczema, dermatitis, sunburn, rashes and infected wounds.

Maybe. I've even had physicians recommend Aloe Vera, and it seems to be soothing. Of course, the first rule of dermatology is "if it's dry, make it wet, and if it's wet, make it dry."

A cocktail of Cider Vinegar and Honey can cure a cough.

A cough isn't an illness; it's a symptom. And you're cheating a bit, because neither vinegar nor honey is "herbal." I don't know if cider vinegar and honey is one of the million or so things that can soothe a throat and therefore reduce the irritation that can precipitate a cough, but it sounds pretty revolting. I prefer a Bee's Knees, which is a couple of teaspoons or so of honey, the juice from half a lemon, and a jigger of gin, mixed thoroughly and then shaken with ice. It certainly feels good going down, and it feels better when it stays down.

Vinegar can treat numerous complaints.

Too vague a claim to be interesting.

Milk-Thistle may help prevent cancer.

Practically anything may help prevent cancer. Things that are strongly connected to cancer usually only become apparent after decades of study.

Juniper boiled in water or taken as Gin can help cure urinary tract infections.

About half of all things you can possibly drink can help cure urinary tract infections. Basically, if it makes you urinate a lot, it helps. It's better if it does not acidify your urine, however. So if you drink a lot of gin and tonic, it will probably help, but it will probably help as much without the gin, although the gin makes it much more enjoyable. If you drink gin and orange juice, it won't help as much, because orange juice tends to acidify the urine. A slice of lime in the gin and tonic, though, is probably safe.

[jambo372]

Epepke
Your claims are very interesting.
I know about many medicines which would originally have been 'herbal' but since doctors have started widely using them they have just became classified as conventional - I'd just like to know why this is.

Personally I don't think Ginger worked for my motion sickness - but right enough it was so bad nothing did.

Maybe you're right about St.John's Wort but I don't understand why it's so popular if your claims are true.

Well it has actually been shown that garlic works in vitro.
You said there are much better ways of treating bacterial infections - I am afraid this isn't always the case. I take it you're talking about antibiotics here. Some bacteria have developed resistance to just about all of them eg MRSA , VRE , TB , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Shigella and Acinetobacter - that's why scientists are turning to Garlic in the first place. And even if antibiotics do work they aren't always necessarily better - Garlic was shown to be more active in vitro than Tetracycline against the anthrax bacillus.

Mugwort treats seizures - It was a herbalist white witch who told me this .

I don't know if there is proof about Aloe Vera but I certainly testify to it - it was the only thing that worked on my eczema.

Vinegar can supposedly cure warts, candida and athlete's foot amongst other things.

I am not really cheating when I say Cider Vinegar - it's made by fermenting apples. I don't fancy taking it myself but I've heard many testify to this.

It hear it's been shown in studies that Milk-Thistle could prevent cancer.

Well tonic water being alkaline may help UTI's but it's not only that. The alcohol in Gin can encourage you to urinate and Juniper can have anti-septic properties.

[jambo372]

About the comparison to phenol.
Phenol compounds are used in many commercially available antiseptics eg TCP.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
About the comparison to phenol.
Phenol compounds are used in many commercially available antiseptics eg TCP.

Yup but phenol itsef isn't used so the comparsion is pretty meaningless.

[jambo372]

It's still shown that thyme oil is active.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
It's still shown that thyme oil is active.

Since I can't find anything on pubmed on this. I suspect the claim is untrue. I is very odd that someone would test something against such and out of date antiseptic.

[jambo372]

see this report :

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine-health/report-24405.html

[jambo372]

The comparison was made years ago.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
see this report :

http://www.innovations-report.com/html/reports/medicine-health/report-24405.html #

I think we are all aware that there is work going on with an extract of garlic.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
The comparison was made years ago.

Source?

[jambo372]

See these sites:
http://www.herbs2000.com/herbs/herbs-thyme.htm

http://www.greenwitch.co.uk/

http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/mgmh.html

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
See these sites:
http://www.herbs2000.com/herbs/herbs-thyme.htm

broken link


http://www.greenwitch.co.uk/

cant find any refernce atall on this site


http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/mgmh.html [/B]

The only refernce talks about Thymol raher than thyme oil. Still nothing about being 20 times stronger.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jambo372
I know about many medicines which would originally have been 'herbal' but since doctors have started widely using them they have just became classified as conventional - I'd just like to know why this is.
This is really just to do with the definition generally used for "conventional" medicine; i.e. conventional medicine is anything that has been demonstrated to work. The medical profession is generally pretty pragmatic in its approach.

I suspect that this is one of the reasons that CAM enthusiasts are reluctant to get involved in double blind testing. Failing the test would probably not cause them much of a problem (it doesn't seem to have in the past), but if they were to prove that their methods actually work they would be adopted by evil conventional medicine and cease to be "alternative."

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
Epepke
Your claims are very interesting.
I know about many medicines which would originally have been 'herbal' but since doctors have started widely using them they have just became classified as conventional - I'd just like to know why this is.

That's a very good question, and I don't really know the answer. Sometimes I think it's cultural, and that some people just like to buy brown pills in brown bottles with labels of brown paper showing brown people dancing around and with names like "Nature's Goodness" because they look right next to their copies of Mother Jones. That may seem a bit cynical, but I think there's some truth to it.

Also, serious herbalists have a kind of theory with two prongs: 1) that the Whole Plant is necessary, and that, being natural, it's harmless and has no side-effects.

This, I think is very dangerous. A lot of medicine can be reduced to killing pests without killing us. A lot of the substances that have evolved in plants have evolved to kill the plant's pests without killing the plants. Some of the plant's pests may be similar to our pests. Bacteria, for instance, are a pest to fungi, so fungi evolved antibiotics. However, we are not plants. At times, it may be that we have more in common with the plant's pests than we do with the plant.

As an example, take one natural product: pyrethrins. These are produced naturally by Chrysanthemum flowers. If you've ever smelled roach spray, you know the smell. One time, I met a girl with Chrysanthemum perfume, and it was disgusting. Anyway, pyrethrin insecticides are used quite frequently, partially on the belief that they are "natural." However, pyrethrin insecticides are some of the worst kinds of insecticides for people with asthma. Even DDT, while it has some obvious ecological problems that mandated its banning, is less dangerous to humans.

That is why it is important to find out what chemicals have the beneficial effect, separate them from other chemicals that the same plant may have evolved that are dangerous, and subject the chemical to rigorous testing. Often, the chemical is modified, as in the case of aspirin. The use of willow bark as an analgesic has been known since the ancient Greeks, but in its natural form it really does a number on the stomach. Adding an acetyl group to the salicylic acid makes it much, much safer. Of course, there are now at least a dozen products modified from aspirin in different ways.

Personally I don't think Ginger worked for my motion sickness - but right enough it was so bad nothing did.

Ah, you mean nausea. I thought by "travel sickness" you meant jet lag. I find that drinking small amounts of very cold water inhibits my nausea.

Maybe you're right about St.John's Wort but I don't understand why it's so popular if your claims are true.

As for St. John's Wort, there was some evidence a few years back that it has a weak monoamine oxidase inhibiting effect. MAOIs have been around for years and years. However, they're seldom prescribed because they can result in some rather dramatic reactions with foods.

Well it has actually been shown that garlic works in vitro. You said there are much better ways of treating bacterial infections - I am afraid this isn't always the case. I take it you're talking about antibiotics here.

A lot of things work really well in vitro. Clorox works in vitro. And there may be something to Clorox treatment; once I got rid of a persistent fungal infection of the fingertips with Clorox. Iodine, of course, is in the same family as chlorine, and it's been used for a long time.

As far as the assumption of antibiotics, you take it wrongly. For topical infections, while a triple antibiotic ointment is a cheap first course of treatment, for more serious infections there are a lot of alternatives. Preparations with metal ions, including silver, work very well.

There are also some interesting cases. It is possible to treat a strep throat infection by swabbing the back of the throat with Betadine and then getting the patient to hack it up. It works great. However, it's so monumentally unpleasant that it isn't done much.

As for antibiotics, it's unfair to compare antibiotics such as amoxicillin in vitro. The whole point of amoxicillin is to survive the gut and produce absorbable, effective metabolites.

Some bacteria have developed resistance to just about all of them eg MRSA , VRE , TB , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Shigella and Acinetobacter - that's why scientists are turning to Garlic in the first place.

I have no problem with people looking for good stuff. If garlic has something good in it that has somehow been missed, we'll know pretty soon, because some manufacturer will isolate the ingredient, and then it won't be called "herbal" any more. In the mean time, though, those garlic tablets are useless. Although I highly recommend eating lots of garlic, as it is delectable, and I cannot rate the value of a satisfying meal too highly.

Mugwort treats seizures - It was a herbalist white witch who told me this.

Well, that's just a bald assertion. Bald as in it has no hair. It doesn't matter if the Pope told you it with a flock of white angels singing the Hallelujah chorus. There needs to be some way to back it up.

I don't know if there is proof about Aloe Vera but I certainly testify to it - it was the only thing that worked on my eczema.

Vinegar can supposedly cure warts, candida and athlete's foot amongst other things.

Well, then it will probably surprise you to learn that, by my memory, for at least 30 years, the most common over-the-counter, FDA-approved remedy for warts has contained, as its active ingredient, concentrated acetic acid. Vinegar is, basically, this acid mixed with water. Which is a waste product of bacteria.

But back to the top of the thread, it just sounds more herbarrific to say "vinegar," especially if you say it comes from apples, which would look nice in a wicker basket made in Guatemala next to those Mother Jones magazines.

Frankly, if I have a wart, I'm going to go to the drug store and get some of the concentrated stuff and not waste my time messing around with vinegar. I have had warts, and I have done this. It does work. It doesn't do the complete job, however. What does may also surprise you: sandpaper. It works great.

It hear it's been shown in studies that Milk-Thistle could prevent cancer.

Again, that's a bald claim. There's no hair to grab onto, no way of following it up. I believe you heard it, but for science, I'd have to see the studies.

Well tonic water being alkaline may help UTI's but it's not only that. The alcohol in Gin can encourage you to urinate and Juniper can have anti-septic properties.

The problem with Juniper as having anti-septic properties is this. There's a reason that your stomach has a pH nearly one. There's a reason that the duodenum is alkaline. It's to destroy stuff. Nearly all molecules of any significant size get destroyed. This can cause problems. Early versions of penicillin get destroyed in the stomach. This is obviously a problem.

You're right in that alcohol is a diuretic, though. But it can't work unless you pump other fluids into yourself. Besides, I'm a big fan of gin, especially Bombay. Not the Sapphire crap; it tastes too medicinal.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
I know about many medicines which would originally have been 'herbal' but since doctors have started widely using them they have just became classified as conventional - I'd just like to know why this is.
It's conventional as soon as a double-blind trial shows that it works.
Maybe you're right about St.John's Wort but I don't understand why it's so popular if your claims are true.
Three reasons:
(1) Some people will believe anything.
(2) The placebo effect. Particularly strong with mild forms of depression, I should guess
(3) Regression to the norm. A lot of alternative medicine offers to treat things like migraine, chronic back pain, depression etc which come and go. People go to their doctor, or herbalist, or crystal healer, or whatever, when they're having a particularly bad spell. As the illness comes and goes, this bad spell will be followed by a better one. It looks like the medicine has worked, but it may just be the Miracle Of The Bleeding Obvious.
You said there are much better ways of treating bacterial infections - I am afraid this isn't always the case. I take it you're talking about antibiotics here. Some bacteria have developed resistance to just about all of them eg MRSA , VRE , TB , Pseudomonas aeruginosa , Shigella and Acinetobacter - that's why scientists are turning to Garlic in the first place.
True. But this is not specifically a criticism of "conventional medicine". Indeed, it's an inevitable consequence of its success. If any successful treatment against bacteria is used for long enough, the bacteria will eventually evolve resistance against it. If some chemical in garlic is a powerful antibiotic, and it's used for long enough, then you'll end up with garlic-resistant bacteria. The exception would be therapies which rely on osmosis, e.g. packing wounds with sugar: I don't see how any defense could be evolved to that.

You missed out willow from your list --- eases pain and inflammation --- active ingredient, naturally occurring asprin. And foxgloves --- contain digitalis, long used as a heart remedy (though curiously enough Gerard's Herbal says they have no medicinal properties) and still in use today.

Interestingly, scientists are not only looking at the folk-wisdom of thousands of human cultures for clues, but also watching what herbs animals eat when they're sick. Zoopharmacognosy, yet. (NB: I just made that word up 'cos I don't know the right one.)

Recently, I saw a woman on a consumer affairs program conplaining that vinegar was being sold with acetic acid as one of the ingredients. Imagine how scared she'll be when she finds that there's hydrogen monoxide in her drinking water.

(Edited to add an apostrophe. Yes, yes, I know. I was born this way, I can't help it. What herb cures pedantry?)

[epepke]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
You missed out willow from your list --- eases pain and inflammation --- active ingredient, naturally occurring asprin.

Salicylic acid, actually. Aspirin is acetylsalicylic acid. The acetyl group makes it less hard on the stomach. Salicylic acid is still used in some OTC acne medications, though.

[Eos of the Eons]

http://victimsofvitamins.blogspot.com/

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2000/08/21/hlsa0821.htm
There are no standards governing concentrations of key ingredients, which can vary widely...
...A ginkgo biloba product on a store shelf is not necessarily the same ginkgo biloba used in the study.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14581247&dopt=Abstract
Among 880 products, 43% were consistent with a benchmark in ingredients and RDD, 20% in ingredients only, and 37% were either not consistent or label information was insufficient.

Bottom line is that the products may or may not contain what they say they do. They will not be tested for effectiveness, and don't work, and may be harmful. Quite often there is a disagreement over what the active ingredient is, and the amount active ingredient will vary from what the label says.

In the case of regulated drugs, we have a fairly good idea what the toxic effects are and at what levels we will see them. We will also have a fairly good idea of how much of the substance we need to have the effects that we want.

In the case of unregulated herbs, we have no idea whether or not we are getting what the bottle says. This has been shown time and time again. We also rarely have good information about what levels of the drug are toxic. (Notice that I didn't say "whether or not the drug is toxic". It will be toxic at some level.) We rarely have good information about efficacy. Thus, we aren't close to being able to know about therapeutic and toxic levels of herbals.


http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:91088:200409:mcfmeikljhainbamlkge

[epepke]

Originally posted by geni
Yup but phenol itsef isn't used so the comparsion is pretty meaningless.

Phenol used to be used in Anbesol. I noticed the other day that Anbesol didn't have any phenol in it.

Phenol can be used to make lots of things, including salicylic acid.

[geni]

Originally posted by epepke
Phenol used to be used in Anbesol. I noticed the other day that Anbesol didn't have any phenol in it.

Phenol can be used to make lots of things, including salicylic acid.


It's a standard starting material for a whole load of chemical reactions. I think the main problem with it is that it causes burns.

[jambo372]

Epepke
Do you have any sources to the research done on St John's Wort ?

Yes I know herbs aren't always necessarily safer than conventional medication ie if this was true Ricin & Belladonna would be safe.

The thing about Clorox & Betadine is that although it may be safe and effective for topical / gargling use, it can't be used internally and this is where most serious infections occur.

It is unfair to compare antibiotics like Amoxycillin in vitro to Garlic compounds? Well yes but a limited number of studies have shown in vivo efficacy of the active Garlic compound Allicin when used systemically. The whole point of an antibiotic like Amoxycillin is to survive the gut and be absorbed. You're half right here ... the infectious agent would have to be sensitive or it wouldn't have any effect even if it was absorbed. Good absorption of an anti-microbial like Amoxycillin is usually a good thing but not in all cases eg before Amoxycillin became widely available doctor's would have used the parent compound Ampicillin - the reason it was widely replaced by Amoxil is that it didn't have as good absorption and bioavailability when administered orally and needed to be given in higher, more frequent oral doses to be as effective in bacterial infections eg ear, nose, throat, respiratory tract and soft tissues, but the disadvantage of this is that it doesn't reach as high GI levels and is less effective in treating infections occuring there eg bacillary dysentry and therefore Ampicillin is still preferred to Amoxil for infections like this caused by sensitive organisms and is also generally still preferred for use by injection.

Most currently available Garlic pills would be ineffective anyway as the active compound in raw garlic isn't included in them not in the least because of it's smell. Garlic may also be effective against E.coli 0157.

I must admit I thought the standard preparation for warts was based on Salicylic acid mixed with collodion and not acetic acid. My gran's old cure for warts was to spit on them first thing when you wake up in the morning. I've had more than my fair share of warts and verrucae - I had them frozen.

Dr Adequate
The Microbiologists investigating the Garlic compound were strangely optimistic that MRSA would be incapable of developing resistance to it but I don't know why. They may be correct however - Garlic has been used medicinally for many years even though evidence of it's effectiveness has only been found recently and no resistance has yet been discovered where as it took S.aureus isolates developed resistance to Penicillin G and Methicillin very quickly after they came into medical use and has also developed resistance to every other modern anti-microbial drug. Of course resistance may still develop - some scientists were naive enough to think that S.aureus would never become resistant to Vancomycin but sadly it still managed to do so.

See this site:
http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/5/garlic.htm

Articles are also available on PubMed.

Strange that it mentioned the Foxglove having no medicinal properties. As far as I'm aware the study of Digitalis first came about when a man had heart trouble many years ago and the conventional doctors who knew very little at the time failed to cure him so he went to a gypsy who made him herbal tea containing Foxglove and he appeared to improve.

Other examples of medicines of plant origin would be Quinine ( from the Cinchona tree), Taxol and Ergotamine from Ergot fungus ( poison rye fungus ).

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
Epepke
Do you have any sources to the research done on St John's Wort ?

They've all been posted here.

The thing about Clorox & Betadine is that although it may be safe and effective for topical / gargling use, it can't be used internally and this is where most serious infections occur.

Quite true. However, garlic is very much changed by the gut. Which is pretty much expected when you drop something into concentrated hydrochloric acid, which I remind you, is the strongest acid there is. So it only makes sense to talk about the metabolites of garlic.

It is unfair to compare antibiotics like Amoxycillin in vitro to Garlic compounds? Well yes but a limited number of studies have shown in vivo efficacy of the active Garlic compound Allicin when used systemically.

Maybe they have. As I said, if there is some magic in garlic associated with a metabolite, then I think we'll probably see it on the shelves pretty soon. And then it won't be called "herbal" any more.

The whole point of an antibiotic like Amoxycillin is to survive the gut and be absorbed. You're half right here ... the infectious agent would have to be sensitive or it wouldn't have any effect even if it was absorbed. Good absorption of an anti-microbial like Amoxycillin is usually a good thing but not in all cases eg before Amoxycillin became widely available doctor's would have used the parent compound Ampicillin - the reason it was widely replaced by Amoxil is that it didn't have as good absorption and bioavailability when administered orally and needed to be given in higher, more frequent oral doses to be as effective in bacterial infections eg ear, nose, throat, respiratory tract and soft tissues, but the disadvantage of this is that it doesn't reach as high GI levels and is less effective in treating infections occuring there eg bacillary dysentry and therefore Ampicillin is still preferred to Amoxil for infections like this caused by sensitive organisms and is also generally still preferred for use by injection.

You're quite right here, but I think you are missing the point. Amoxicillin and ampicillin and erythromycin and doxycyclene and ciproflaxin and all those antibiotics that we all know and love are changed by their passage through the gut, and it is the changed substances, the metabolites, that do the work. Just grinding up a pill and putting it in a Petri dish is not guaranteed to have the same effect. Just like if you take aspirin, in the gut, it becomes sodium-acetyl-salicilate. That's the thing that does the work, not the aspirin per se.

I must admit I thought the standard preparation for warts was based on Salicylic acid mixed with collodion and not acetic acid.

Salicylic acid is also included in many preparations, possibly because it makes them hurt less, but maybe because it has some effect as well. But if you look at the bottle, it has acetic acid in it.

My father swore by fuming nitric acid. He said it worked great on warts. It's certainly possible that any acid that is strong enough will do.

But vinegar? At 5% acidity or less? I doubt it. (Whatever 5% acidity means. I go by pH or molar. But it's still not much, whatever.)

Which reminds me of a palindrome. Straw? No, too stupid a fad. I put soot on warts.

Soot (or, rather ash) would of course be alkaline. I never tried an alkaline on a wart. It might work, though. A bit of potassium hydroxide, maybe?

[jambo372]

Epepke
True- the active metabolites do work but it has been shown in a limited number of studies that Allicin capsules have produced effects comparable to antibiotics on nosocomial MRSA wound infections, giving some evidence suggesting it is probably active in vivo.

I am not saying that vinegar works on warts - I'd probably recommend something stronger, I've got an aunt who uses vinegar for every ailment and cleaning job under the sun though.

[Eos of the Eons]

Selling a standardized product is voluntary on the manufacturers part. Since it is thought that the quantity and composition of the bioconstituents and/or herb present effect the reliability and efficacy of a product, this is something to be aware of. The problem of inconsistent or incorrectly labeled product potency still exists. The correct genus and species, adulterations, absence of specific constituents, incorrect labeling, and labeling that lacks information should all be cause for care when purchasing any herbal product. It is often advisable to look for the U.S.P. notation on a product showing that the manufacturer follows standards established by the U.S. Pharmacopoeia.

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/alt/stjohn.htm

Buyer beware, so at least be aware.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
As far as I'm aware the study of Digitalis first came about when a man had heart trouble many years ago and the conventional doctors who knew very little at the time failed to cure him so he went to a gypsy who made him herbal tea containing Foxglove and he appeared to improve.
You really shouldn't do this. "As far as I'm aware". You're not sure, are you? This is something you heard from Some Bloke In A Pub. This is like citing "a white witch" as a source. THEY ARE NOT COMPLETELY RELIABLE.

Interesting thread, though.

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
Epepke
True- the active metabolites do work but it has been shown in a limited number of studies that Allicin capsules have produced effects comparable to antibiotics on nosocomial MRSA wound infections, giving some evidence suggesting it is probably active in vivo.

That's backward reasoning, though. That some antibiotics may have some effects in vitro does not mean that you can work back from the effectiveness of the metabolites back to the capsules in vitro. That is, if you find an oral antibiotic which doesn't work if you grind it up and put it in a dish, it doesn't mean squat.

[jambo372]

Epepke
It basically boils down to the fact that Allicin had worked on the MRSA infection in patients who had failed treatment with repeated courses of antibiotics.

[jambo372]

A white witch isn't completely reliable - not any less reliable than most people.

[Ashles]

A white witch isn't completely reliable - not any less reliable than most people.
Well when it comes to the medicinal qualities of herbs and chemicals they would be a great deal less reliable than, say, a doctor, or chemist or botanist.

When we talk about the active ingredients of certain plants we can discuss studies that have analysed these plants and their effects.

Someone who describes themselves as "A White Witch" will more likely be talking about anecdotal evidence and wisdom handed down over generations that may or may not be completely false. They are unlikely to be talking about chemical ingredients.

If they do discuss the chemical properties then fair enough.

[jambo372]

Ashles
I said no less reliable than MOST people, medical professionals are an exception. The Witch I am talking about was a trained herbalist however.

[Ashles]

Well firstly you wouldn't cite an average person off the street as a source of medical knowledge so the comparison is valid.

Secondly when you say a "trained herbalist" I am wondering what you mean, because at the moment there appear to be many levels of herbalism and what people consider herbalism to be.
From entiterely scientific analysts of the properties of plants all the way through to totally bogus old-wives tales treatments.

The whole field of herbalism seems to be very muddled, which is a shame, because real useful treatments could get buried in amongst the bogus so people find it hard to know what is true and what isn't.

Out of interest what training has your friend the White Witch had?

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Mugwort treats seizures - It was a herbalist white witch who told me this.
It doesn't matter what she was qualified in. What matters is the way the information was obtained. If by scientific trials on people suffering from seizures, then mugwort prevents seizures. Had your white witch done such a trial? Has she read a report of such a trial? If not, then she's talking about something she doesn't really know --- something she was told, doubtless, as part of her training. But, Jambo, not everything we hear is true.

[drkitten]

Originally posted by jambo372
Ashles
I said no less reliable than MOST people,...

For exactly this reason, I don't take medical advice from MOST people. I have enough ignorance lying around my house that I don't need to import it specially.

("Ah, but you see, she wasn't just ignorant! She was SPECIALLY TRAINED in ignorance! This makes her ignorance of much higher quality than MOST ignorance. Why, she can kill you slowly and painfully through her ignorance instead of quickly like MOST people.")

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by jambo372
A cocktail of Cider Vinegar and Honey can cure a cough.
No, no, it's cider not cider vinegar. And in sufficient quantities, it cures a cough until the morning. Brandy works too.

Vinegar can treat numerous complaints.
Such as "Hey! There's no dressing on my salad!"

Calendula and Aloe Vera help many skin complaints including Eczema, dermatitis, sunburn, rashes and infected wounds.
I've used aloe (directly from the plant) on sunburn, and it seems to work for me. I'd have to say I believe this one, although I don't know if the same effect would be had from putting any old slime on my skin.

[jambo372]

She got her information from a report.
She had done several courses in herbalism, crystal healing and aromatherapy.

See these pages on Mugwort:
http://www.cherylsherbs.com/FAQ_6.htm

http://www.botanical.com/botanical/mgmh/m/mugwor61.html

I don't know what you're saying about killing someone with herbs; you don't need training to do that - I know lots of herbs which could be used.

[jambo372]

Cider and cider vinegar can be used.

[Ashles]

She had done several courses in herbalism, crystal healing and aromatherapy.
Well can you see why this might not be considered up there with actual science or medical training?

By grouping herbalism in with crystal healing and aromatherapy you make it sound very unscientific. If herbalism is approached that way then it will not be of any real use as little knowledge or understanding is involved.

She got her information from a report.
Well the question is what sort of a report? Report could mean anything. A scientific study? A flyer that came free with a crystal booklet?
You'd hardly trust a doctor if he was diagnosing you in his surgery from a single report (of some unspecified type), or from a course he had taken with crystal healing.

It sounds so much more healthy and natural to say 'herbs' instead of 'chemicals', but it is the chemicals that are acting on the diseases and symptoms and some understanding of this is important if you are treating people with actual medical conditions.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
She got her information from a report.
Which report. What did it say? What methodology did they use? This last is crucial.
She had done several courses in herbalism
Had she done any experiments in herbalism.
crystal healing and aromatherapy.
Crystal healing, now, is just total woo-woo BS, and I say this as one who has studied it at length and in depth and read half-a-dozen books on it by enthusiasts. The fact that she's done a course in it does not fill me with confidence in her judgement. It makes me think that she'd swallow any old trash if you put a New Age glaze on it.

[jambo372]

She just said a scientific credited report.
I make herbalism sound unscientific by grouping it with aromatherapy and crystal healing ?
I'm not saying crystal healing is useless but I can see what you mean there, but not aromatherapy - there is evidence that chemicals in many essential oils can have beneficial effects.
Herbalism certainly isn't unscientific as we've saw from previous posts here telling how :
Aspirin
Quinine
Early antibiotics
Taxol
Opioid analgesics
Ergotamine
Digitalis drugs ... the list goes on ...
all came originally from plants.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
She just said a scientific credited report.
I make herbalism sound unscientific by grouping it with aromatherapy and crystal healing ?
No, jambo, but you make your source sound uncritical by revealling that she's been suckered by crystal healing. What does she know or care of what is or isn't "scientifically credited"?
I'm not saying crystal healing is useless
Why on earth not...?
but I can see what you mean there, but not aromatherapy - there is evidence that chemicals in many essential oils can have beneficial effects.
Agreed. But are they useful taken nasally?
Herbalism certainly isn't unscientific as we've saw from previous posts here telling how :
Aspirin
Quinine
Early antibiotics
Taxol
Opioid analgesics
Ergotamine
Digitalis drugs ... the list goes on ...
all came originally from plants.
Agreed. In fact, I pointed out asprin and digitalis to you myself. But what I still haven't gotten through to you is that whether the use of A PARTICULAR HERB is or isn't scientific depends on the METHODOLOGY by which it was found, or supposedly found, to have medicinal properties. Double-blind tests, yes. Old wives' tales, no. A herbalist relying on the latter is unscientifc: on the former, scientific.

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
I'm not saying crystal healing is useless because for all I know it might not be - I've saw enough people who swear by it.

Essential oils can be used by inhalation or by applying them topically and their active components being absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
I'm not saying crystal healing is useless because for all I know it might not be - I've saw enough people who swear by it.

Aztecs sun. Need I explain further?


Essential oils can be used by inhalation or by applying them topically and their active components being absorbed through the skin into the bloodstream. [/B]

Of course they can be used that way but is there any evidence that they work?

[jambo372]

Yes there's evidence they have beneficial properties.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
Yes there's evidence they have beneficial properties.

Really? Lets see some properly conduted clinical trials then.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by Ashles
Secondly when you say a "trained herbalist" I am wondering what you mean
Housetrained?

[Ashles]

I've saw enough people who swear by it.
Jambo it's really time you stopped using these types of arguments.

Lots of people swear by:
Throwing salt over their shoulder to keep the Devil away
Avoiding treading on cracks in the pavement
Avoiding the colour green
Black cats are lucky/unlucky
Palmistry
Homeopathy
Scientology
Feng Shui
etc.

It's called superstition. Just because a lot of people believe in a thing doesn't make it true.

Until a few days ago I thougt that the phases of the moon were due to the shadow cast on it by the earth being between it and the sun. If someone had asked me about the phases of the moon I would happily have explained it as such. Many people believe the same thing. I now know I was incorrect. I'm glad I have had my knowledge corrected.

People often don't know any better because they haven't been exposed to the correct information. But you seem to want to ignore any information if it disagrees with your already held beliefs. That's no way to learn anything new.

There is absolutely nothing defensible in terms of healing about crystals. Yet you feel you have to resort to an argument which is basically "Well lots of people believe in it"
Well that doesn't mean it's real.

It's beyond me as to why you can't admit that some of these things might have no value whatsoever.

[Eos of the Eons]

I can make up whatever I want to about herbs, put it in course materials, and teach other people to remember the crap I wrote. There is nothing of a standard when it comes to herbalism, naturopaths, etc. What is worse is that the misinformation gets passed down from generation to generation without any actual facts being checked out and verified.

any wacko and/or scam artist in Canada can set up a
private school to teach anything they want in the field of alternative medicine. Then they can take their huge tuition that they paid to study some bizarre, unproved alternative medical scam and fill in a form to deduct their tuition. Why does the government of Canada allow this?

Here is a Google search for HealthPro College of Natural Medicine.

http://www.google.ca/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&q=%22HealthPro+College+of+Natural+Medicine%22


http://www.ssr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?1:mss:91234:200409:ekcoilacknpiafjfiaik

Case in point, all the crap Young teaches in his Young Living Oils classes on things like raindrop therapy.
http://www.naturesgift.com/RDT.htm

It promotes the unsafe use of essential oils, putting people at risk of skin irritation and
There is no published empirical substantiation to support its claims that RDT is a "tool for assisting the body in correcting defects in the curvature of the spine, such as scoliosis.


You can write whatever you want to sell whatever you want. Nothing is regulated.

So when somebody tells me they spent 4 years learning crap, then I'm not impressed one bit. Look at chiros.

[Ashles]

She just said a scientific credited report
Well if that's the case could she show it to you? Or could we know the details of the report so we can look it up ourselves?

What would be wrong in asking her about this report? (Unless you suspect that it might not exist.)
If it does exist then we can all read it and discuss it in more detail.

[Dr Adequate]

jambo, if you're still listening, I hope you've got the point.

It's not WHAT you think --- it's HOW you found it out.

Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Dr Adequate
jambo, if you're still listening, I hope you've got the point.

It's not WHAT you think --- it's HOW you found it out.

Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism.

I'm beginning to think that jambo is a lost cause until he/she gets older, and even then, probably is a culturaly predisposed woo.. Surely herbalism, aromatherapy, crystal healing etc. is not what he/she considers 'a career in medicine'? :(

What on earth are schools teaching as 'science' these days?

[jambo372]

The Mighty Thor
When I said a career in medicine I meant I wanted to be a medical microbiologist, I don't consider aromatherapy and crystal therapy to be careers in medicine, but I consider herbalism to be a valuable sub category of medicine ... if you say I'm wrong see in previous posts the vast list of life-saving medications which are botanical in origin and have revolutionised many areas of medicine. My career has nothing to do with this anyway.

Dr Adequate
I'm not basing my beliefs on what I think , I'm basing them on how I found out. Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism - I see nothing at all wonderful about it.

[Ashles]

I consider herbalism to be a valuable sub category of medicine
Well you may consider it such, but it isn't. Herbalism isn't the study of plants, or the study of properties of plants or a scientific discipline at all.
No-one is disputing that some plants have properties that can alleviate symptoms or have some curative properties. But no serious scientist would refer to the study of this as herbalism.
It's not the plants themselves that have the healing properties, but chemicals within them - i.e. you can get the same effect by extracting the chemicals and applying them directly. No plant is required.
Herbalism, however, concentrates on the theory that it is the plant that is required because it makes it sound more natural and healthy somehow.

Herbalism is not a scientific discipline and does not analyse its results as such. Some of the suggestions on your list are agreed with by medical science, and some most definitely are not. Herbalism does not carry out tests and trials to continually test the efficacy of what it recommends, instead, once a plant is rumoured to have certain properties it is claimed to have them full stop.
Overall it's far too hit and miss to be called a serious way of looking at plant properties.

[epepke]

Originally posted by jambo372
She just said a scientific credited report.

I'm sorry, jambo372, but just hearing somebody say that something is a "scientific credited" report means worse than nothing.

Science is the least hierarchical of all endeavors I know of. In science, the common practice is for people to try to rip any idea to shreds. That's what we're doing. It's a rather brutal process, and this is good. Because the idea is that something that is actually true can eventually survive brutal scrutiny.

It is quite difficult for human beings to subject their ideas to this kind of brutal scrutiny, which is why there is more pseudoscience than science. and also why training in science is important. It is largely a process of learning how to live with the fact that one's cherished ideas may turn out to be wrong. This is not easy.

Herbalism certainly isn't unscientific as we've saw from previous posts here telling how

All your examples, while valid, survived brutal scientific scrutiny. This does not mean that "herbalism" is scientific. To find out the answer to that, you would have to look at what herbalists do and to what extent they are willing to change their views when being subjected to brutal scientific scrutiny.

My experience is that those who call themselves "herbalists" are not generally that courageous. When they are, if the ideas succeed, then they become accepted in the scientific community.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by jambo372
The Mighty Thor
see in previous posts the vast list of life-saving medications which are botanical in origin and have revolutionised many areas of medicine. My career has nothing to do with this anyway.



That's not herbalism. That's science based medicine. Herbalism is chucking some bark in a mixer and saying it will cure headaches - nevermind what that does to your stomach if too much active ingredient actually makes it into the mix.

[Eos of the Eons]

All of this will matter in your career. You will see the differences in "herbalism" compared to what you actually study. I hope there are som Labs in your courses.

I commend you in your endeavor, and know you will totally get what we are saying one day.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Eos of the Eons
All of this will matter in your career. You will see the differences in "herbalism" compared to what you actually study. I hope there are som Labs in your courses.

I commend you in your endeavor, and know you will totally get what we are saying one day.

Thank you for putting that so clearly. I was tryng to point jambo toward a realisation that a career in science requires the adoption of critical thinking techniques. He has not shown any awareness of how the scientific method works. His pronouncements on Nina Kulagina and other wooism does not display a familiarity with critical thinking or the scientific method. He must spend quite a bit of time reading up on these supposed paranormalists. Yet, reading about Newton, Darwin, Mendel, or Fleming might benefit him more in his proposed career. And these real wonder-workers can be every bit as interesting and exciting as the paranormal.

"Life is short, the art long, opportunity fleeting, experiment treacherous, judgment difficult."
Hippocrates

Yet, I admit that I did not develop critical thinking until University. I doubt if many school students would know what a peer-reviewed, published scientific paper really is.

I suppose in some ways, I am criticising the education system rather than jambo per se.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
The Mighty Thor
When I said a career in medicine I meant I wanted to be a medical microbiologist, I don't consider aromatherapy and crystal therapy to be careers in medicine, but I consider herbalism to be a valuable sub category of medicine ... if you say I'm wrong see in previous posts the vast list of life-saving medications which are botanical in origin and have revolutionised many areas of medicine. My career has nothing to do with this anyway.

Dr Adequate
I'm not basing my beliefs on what I think , I'm basing them on how I found out. Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism - I see nothing at all wonderful about it.

It is very difficult and challenging to open up cherished personal beliefs to severe rational scrutiny. It is admirable that you have been honest about your beliefs here. Scepticism can seem harsh and brutal until you witness the damage that unchallenged falsehoods cause in the world. You have to realise that there are many people out there who are just out to exploit others with paranormal claims.

[drinkysr]

I woudl like to comment on the claim "thyme oil is 20 time stronger than phenol"

Actually, when you buy phenol in the store as an antiseptic sore throat spray, you are getting a VERY dilute silution. If you order 100% phenol from a chemical company do not even think of opening it without heavy gloves on. If so much as a drop hits your palm, it will barely pause on it its way to the floor.

If thyme oil was 20 times "stonger" than that, it would be a chemical weapon.

[drinkysr]

When you speak about things like Taxol, VP-16, ergot alkaloids, vincristine etc, you are talking about products that occur natrually (in plants) that have been proven to have some sort of medicinal effect. Ergotamine has been shown in double blind studies to reduce the severity and duration of migraine headaches (but ONLY migraine headaches, not tension headaches, or post-concussion headaches or brain tumor headaches).

When I worked with a natural products medicinal chemist, his job was to comb the bioshpere for novel compounds that might have important medicinal applications. When he found one he would have it assayed by someone else to determine if it might be active. The whole time I knew him we never found anything important (but we did find some thing new and/or interesting).

That is what medicinal chemistry is, finding new compounds that might have a medicinal use. Then if they do, you try to synthesize the same compound in the lab becasue harvesting the plant and extracting it is a more expensive and less productive enterprise.

By contrast HERBALISM is a form of traditional medicicne formed through trial and error using teas and tinctures etc. For the most part the claims of herbalism are not subjected to scientific scrutiny, rather they are based on tradition.

The 2 field do interact though. Some time ago a medicinal chemist noted that foxglove tea had been used for a long time to treat heart conditions. He and others would eventually isolate digitalis. Digitalis would then be tested in numerous clinical trials to prove that it does slow the heart and strengthen its contracitons, and is useful for heart failure.

So the medicinal chemist sees herbalism as a huge pile of POTENTIAL biologically active products the he or she will sift through in order to come up with the next Taxol. Unfortunately, there are thousands of herbs, millions of compounds, and therefore the search will take time.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by drinkysr
When you speak about things like Taxol, VP-16, ergot alkaloids, vincristine etc, you are talking about products that occur natrually (in plants) that have been proven to have some sort of medicinal effect. Ergotamine has been shown in double blind studies to reduce the severity and duration of migraine headaches (but ONLY migraine headaches, not tension headaches, or post-concussion headaches or brain tumor headaches).

When I worked with a natural products medicinal chemist, his job was to comb the bioshpere for novel compounds that might have important medicinal applications. When he found one he would have it assayed by someone else to determine if it might be active. The whole time I knew him we never found anything important (but we did find some thing new and/or interesting).

That is what medicinal chemistry is, finding new compounds that might have a medicinal use. Then if they do, you try to synthesize the same compound in the lab becasue harvesting the plant and extracting it is a more expensive and less productive enterprise.

By contrast HERBALISM is a form of traditional medicicne formed through trial and error using teas and tinctures etc. For the most part the claims of herbalism are not subjected to scientific scrutiny, rather they are based on tradition.

The 2 field do interact though. Some time ago a medicinal chemist noted that foxglove tea had been used for a long time to treat heart conditions. He and others would eventually isolate digitalis. Digitalis would then be tested in numerous clinical trials to prove that it does slow the heart and strengthen its contracitons, and is useful for heart failure.

So the medicinal chemist sees herbalism as a huge pile of POTENTIAL biologically active products the he or she will sift through in order to come up with the next Taxol. Unfortunately, there are thousands of herbs, millions of compounds, and therefore the search will take time.

Very well put!

No doubt herbalists have applied treatments down through the centuries. Many of the 'witches' who were persecuted during the great European purges were often lay herbalists or midwives. However, with shamans and herbalists, it was often a very hit and miss affair since dosages were irregular and impossible to quantify regarding active ingredients.

Think of the potency of TTX, Tetradotoxin. It comes from the Fugu fish (commonly the Puffer fish) of Japan and Haiti.

The poison comes from bacteria in algae eaten by the fish and is concentrated in the liver, skin, and sex organs of the fish. It is thought that reports of 'zombieism' reflect the use of this toxin in shamanic rituals.

A small amount causes a floating effect and tingling in the mouth. But it it may just as well cause paralysis similar to suspended animation that looks like death. The victim is still aware of everything going on around them. Higher doses DO cause death. It may be an urban legend that thrill-seeking Japanese gourmets eat the puffer fish, hoping that the chef has removed most of the toxin.

Of course, this is not 'herbal', but such potions were often used by shamans along with herbal drinks that often contained poppy extracts. Peyote was a favoured herb among native American shamans. Ergot may have caused some of the strange behaviour described during the Salem witchcraft trials in 1692 via contaminated bread.

So, 'natural' does not mean 'benign or beneficial'. Belladonna is 'natural' and can be deadly. Atropine is the medical extract that can be dose-tested and then become beneficial.

These are important distinctions, jambo, and you should be able now to see why herbalism IS NOT SCIENCE.

Here is a recent find:

PINE CONE IN MRSA FIGHT
The humble pine cone may become a key instrument in the fight against the hospital superbug MRSA.

Researchers at the University of London's School of Pharmacy found that immature pine cones contain anti-bacterial agents that could fight the killer bug.
http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,31500-13229849,00.html

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
I'm not basing my beliefs on what I think , I'm basing them on how I found out.
But listening to white witches is not a valid methodology! Gah! They say all sorts of silly things! To find out what effect mugwort has on seizures, you have to TEST MUGWORT'S EFFECT ON SEIZURES. Or find out what happened when someone else did.That's HOW you find out its effect.
Welcome to the wonderful world of scepticism - I see nothing at all wonderful about it.
Being right is wonderful. (You should try it, you really should). Modern medicine, for example, was created by the process I've described. As a result of which I've never even heard of anyone in the UK in my lifetime suffering from cholera, smallpox, polio, puerpal fever, yellow fever, scarlet fever, diphtheria, typhus, typhoid, the Black Death, sleeping sickness... The exception that proves the rule? I once knew a girl who'd had TB. She was born in Africa, and when she moved here modern medicine was made available, which cured her. If you test your ideas carefully TO SEE IF THEY WORK, you end up with SOMETHING THAT WORKS. Something wonderful. If not, you end up with crystal healing.

(Edited to remove ambiguity)

[Dr Adequate]

...oops...

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
Research has been done on mugwort showing it may help seizures and that's why I believe it may well have an effect.

What you described really has nothing to do with your so called 'wonders of scepticism.

You know no one who's suffered from cholera or typhoid - wow - that has nothing to do with scepticism - it's due to the introduction of proper sanitation and vaccination.

Smallpox - was eradicated by the WHO mass vaccination scheme not scepticism.

Polio - nearly eradicated because of vaccination - not scepticism.

Puerperal fever - eradicated due to sterile methods of child birth - not scepticism.

Yellow fever - again the thanks goes to vaccination and pest control, not scepticism.

Scarlet fever - thanks to antibiotics such as penicillin and erythromycin - not scepticism. I know people who've had scarlet fever in this day and age anyway.

Diptheria - thanks to vaccination again - not scepticism, I also know people who've suffered diptheria.

Typhus - thanks to pest control and antibiotics like tetracyclines, not scepticism.

Black Death - is no longer prevalent in the developed world thanks to sanitation and pest control and is treatable with drugs like Gentamicin - no praise for scepticism here either.

Sleeping Sickness - only prevalent in certain areas of Africa and Tropical America in the case of Chagas disease and often treatable with antiprotozoal medications like Pentamidine - not anything to do with scepticism.

I know loads of people who've had TB and the reduction in it was due to mass use of BCG jabs and it is on the increase again and many strains are now resistant to the first line antibiotic combinations. Nothing to do with scepticism.

The Mighty Thor
It wouldn't be a surprise if substances in pine killed MRSA, after all pine extracts have been used in disinfectants for years.
Shockingly enough I've heard some microbiologists say that being more dirty as opposed to more clean may possibly reduce MRSA - their idea was that MRSA are weaker than normal S.aureus strains but MRSA are more capable of surviving anti-infectives through natural selection, so using them will barely touch MRSA but kill off their sensitive competition giving them extra space, but if they aren't used then the sensitive competition will just eventually dominate over MRSA again.

[Ashles]

Dr Adequate
Research has been done on mugwort showing it may help seizures and that's why I believe it may well have an effect.

What you described really has nothing to do with your so called 'wonders of scepticism.

You know no one who's suffered from cholera or typhoid - wow - that has nothing to do with scepticism - it's due to the introduction of proper sanitation and vaccination.

Smallpox - was eradicated by the WHO mass vaccination scheme not scepticism.

Polio - nearly eradicated because of vaccination - not scepticism.

Puerperal fever - eradicated due to sterile methods of child birth - not scepticism.

Yellow fever - again the thanks goes to vaccination and pest control, not scepticism.

Scarlet fever - thanks to antibiotics such as penicillin and erythromycin - not scepticism. I know people who've had scarlet fever in this day and age anyway.

Diptheria - thanks to vaccination again - not scepticism, I also know people who've suffered diptheria.

Typhus - thanks to pest control and antibiotics like tetracyclines, not scepticism.

Black Death - is no longer prevalent in the developed world thanks to sanitation and pest control and is treatable with drugs like Gentamicin - no praise for scepticism here either.

Sleeping Sickness - only prevalent in certain areas of Africa and Tropical America in the case of Chagas disease and often treatable with antiprotozoal medications like Pentamidine - not anything to do with scepticism.

I know loads of people who've had TB and the reduction in it was due to mass use of BCG jabs and it is on the increase again and many strains are now resistant to the first line antibiotic combinations. Nothing to do with scepticism.

Please replace 'scepticism' with 'herbalism' and you may yet get the point.

Scepticism does not argue against the existence of useful chemical compounds in plants or the existence of vaccination.

Herbalism, as a discipline would never have discovered any of these things. Herbalism has no methods for distinguishing the effective chemicals in a plant. Or other harmful ones.
How does herbalism help with vaccination? What does a herbalist understand about the subject?

To try and prove your point you have leapt completely into the "look what scientific methodology has done for the world".
That is EXACTLY what we have being saying all along.

Proper science saves lives. And if you plan to study it when you are older then I respect that totally. But you have to start letting go of the whole "Someone told me this once and I believe it" method of thinking.

For example, have you asked the White Witch about their 'report'? You are happy enough to quote scientific studies when they support your beliefs. What about when they don't?

It wouldn't be a surprise if substances in pine killed MRSA, after all pine extracts have been used in disinfectants for years.
Please tell me you aren't talking about pine SCENT, and that you actually have some information about the disinfecting properties of pine.

[Eos of the Eons]

Skepticism...

results in the search for effective cures, solutions, etc. like vaccines.

Or we can remain unskeptical and just do some crazy dance to ward off evil spirits in the hopes that will cure your cancer.+

Or down some herbal junk and hope that works. There's no way to tell what dose you are getting or what is the active ingredient, but it might work.

Herbalism messing up modern medicine:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62671-2004Sep4.html

Trying to hide under the guise "natural" makes some people very dishonest.

[Jas]

I think another valid point to bring up when mentioning herbalism is the environmental factor. I am always surprised when environmental - minded people promote 'natural' over synthetic compounds. What if the herb in question is rare, and/or important to biodiversity? Wouldn't it be much better to synthesize to compound in question, in a controlled setting, rather than decimating the natural population, or destroying an ecosystem in order to replace it with farmed versions of the herb?

[The Mighty Thor]

jambo372

You just haven't got the point at all, have you?

The scientific method is, by its very nature, sceptical. Good scientists are sceptical, or, at least, they should be if they are to be credible, respected by their peers, and effective.

You will be telling us next that you believe that Padre Pio cured people, or that homeopathy has been proven scientifically. If you truly want to pursue a career in medical research, then your beliefs regarding science and psuedoscience will definitely be scrutinised by your professors. So, it is relevant to the discussion, jambo.

There is nothing wrong with admitting "I've looked at some of the beliefs I had with a critical eye, and I see now that I was wrong." But it does take a lot of courage and quite a bit of work to do that. After all, what would you be losing by seeking out the truth?

People here, some of whom have trodden that well-worn path, are trying to point you in the right direction. Others are probably experts in their field of study and wish to advise you wisely. But you don't seem to be listening.

Do you think that scepticism is somehow a bad thing? If you do, why do you think this?

[patchbunny]

Originally posted by jambo372
I'd just like to know what people here believe about herbal medicine if anything.

Supposedly there is proof available for the following claims :

Ginger and Galangal root can help deal with travel sickness.
Well, I've heard that recent studies have shown that ginger can help with motion sickness. A quick search revealed <a href ="http://ajpgi.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/284/3/G481">this article</a> in the Americal Journal of Physiology - Gastrointestinal and Liver Physiology which indicates that ginger can help prevent motion sickness.

I'll let others disect the article. I need a dictionary just to get through the introduction. :)

--Patch

[cajela]

Traditional medicines can be good places to look for new drugs. After all, it's not like homeopathy; there are actually active ingredients in there. St John's Wort does seem to be quite psychoactive, for one.

If you're interested in depression, here is a proper medical journal review of complementary treatments, which ranks the quality of the evidence.
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/176_10_200502/jor10311_fm.html

Here is the relevant excerpt:
===================================
Description:
St John's wort (Hypericum perforatum) is a herb available in tablets, capsules and liquid form from supermarkets and health food shops.

Rationale:
St John's wort is a traditional herbal remedy in Europe. Its mode of action is not fully understood, but it appears to inhibit the synaptic reuptake of serotonin, norepinephrine and dopamine.30

Quality of evidence:
Level I. (Evidence obtained from a systematic review of all relevant randomised controlled trials)

Review of effectiveness:
A meta-analysis of 27 randomised controlled trials concluded that this treatment is superior to placebo and not different from tricyclic antidepressants in the treatment of mild to moderate depression.31 A meta-analysis of six studies that met stringent methodological criteria concluded that St John's wort is 50% more likely to produce an antidepressant effect than placebo and is equivalent to standard antidepressants.32 The side effects and drop-out rate are lower with St John's wort than with tricyclic antidepressants. Fewer trials have compared St John's wort with the newer antidepressants, but results to date indicate that it is as effective as selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors.33-35 Although most of the evidence on St John's wort is positive, the largest trial so far found no difference between St John's wort and placebo.36 This study was too recent to be included in the meta-analyses cited above.

Although St John's wort is generally reported to have fewer side effects than antidepressants, the Therapeutic Goods Administration has warned that it can interact with a number of prescription medicines, leading to a loss of therapeutic effect of these medicines. Medicines affected include HIV protease inhibitors, HIV non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors, cyclosporin, tacrolimus, warfarin, digoxin, theophylline, anticonvulsants, oral contraceptives, SSRIs and related drugs, and triptans. An information sheet is available for healthcare professionals.37
Conclusion:

The use of St John's wort for mild to moderate depression is supported by most of the available evidence.
==================================
(Numbers refer to references, follow the link to get those.)

[Dr Adequate]

Jambo, since you seem utterly determined to miss my point, I'll repeat it.
Originally posted by Dr Adequate
If you test your ideas carefully TO SEE IF THEY WORK, you end up with SOMETHING THAT WORKS. Something wonderful. If not, you end up with crystal healing.
Science consists entirely of

(a) Thinking up new ideas
(b) Being sceptical about them

Without (b) modern medicne would be impossible. Take cholera, for example. John Snow (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/snowbio.html) put his ideas to the test (http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/removal.html) . If he'd just run around like a woo-woo saying "I KNOW that cholera is caused by water contaminated by the feces of cholera victims" then people would have asked him the question that we're always asking. HOW DO YOU KNOW? He knew because he took the trouble to find out.

Pseudoscience consists entirely of

(a) Dredging up old, discredited ideas
(b) Not being sceptical about them.

Finding a scientific study of mugwort saying that it is good for fits would speak well for mugwort. Having it praised by a "white witch" is worthless evidentially. I have just been reading a book on crystal healing by a white witch. She gets her information by channeling the goddess Bridgit. The goddess Bridgit is apparently under the impression that the human body is 98% water, 'cos she says so on the first page. When someone tells you that they're a white witch, you should be extremely suspicious of anything else they tell you, not swallow it down uncritically.

Oh, and that Nigerian guy who wants to make you incredibly wealthy if you'll just give him your bank details? Don't go there.

[jambo372]

Dr Adequate
Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?
:dl:
The other scientists did have their way. They demanded that Pasteur provide good evidence and replicable experiments. He did. His ideas about disease were the only ones that withstood scepticism. There were dozens of others, which didn't. Scepticism found the right one. That's how we got where we are now. There is no other way.
Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.
Alexander Fleming had done hundreds of experiments looking for a mould with just such properties before he noticed penicilium's effect on a different experiment. AND THEN HE TESTED IT TO SEE IF IT WORKED ON HUMANS. He went back to testing mould after mould, strain after strain: the best strain, if I remember rightly, grew on grapefruit. HE TESTED IT. IT WORKED. If he'd just seen this thing in vitro, and then gone around yelling that he had a magic mould which would cure bacterial diseases, he would have been a woo-woo.

Every piece of genuine scientific knowledge has been tested by the best methods we have. That's what makes it scientific knowledge. The content of science is just those ideas about the natural world which so far have survived sceptical inquiry. No more, no less.

[Hellbound]

Originally posted by jambo372
Dr Adequate
Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.

We'd be exactly where we are today.

Other scientists were rightly sceptical of Pasteur's germ theory. It was a new idea. Do you expect them to simply accept it right away, based on Pastuer's word alone? They were sceptical, which is the nature of science. They questioned the theory, tested it, and when the theory failed to fail, it was accepted as truth. That questioning, that scepticism of the theory, is what gives us confidence in it.

Likewise for penicillin. How was it known that the penicillin caused the bacterial death? Because Fleming was sceptical of it himself, and tested it himself. Again, other scientists were rightly sceptical of the idea, and questioned and tested it to determine it's truth.

You seem to be confusing scepticism (the attitude of requiring credicle evidence before accepting an idea) with cynicism (the attitude of rejecting any new idea offhand). Without sceptical review of Fleming and Pasteur's discoveries, we would not have been able to place a high measure of confidence in them.

Think where we would be without scepticism. The idea that humors or demons caused illness would be prevalent, because no one would question it. Everyone would still "know" that the earth was the center of the solar system. It is precisely by questioning and testing new ideas...being sceptical of them...that we can seperate truth from fiction.

The second quote in my sig line is on precisely this subject. Scientific method is based on scepticism. Science advances by trying it's best to disprove new ideas and new theories. They try to crash them into the wall. If the theories can be disproven, then they weren't true to begin with. If the theory stands up to the tests, providing accurate answers matching the predictions, then it is accepted. If the car hits the wall and stays intact, it's considered safe. If the car hits the wall and shatters it, this is an exceptional result that requires more testing to confirm...concepts like relativity, evolution, and quantum mechanics fit here. They cahnge the entire directions of their fields, and as such were (rightfully) more rigorously tested before acceptance.

Edited to add:

Dammit, Dr Adequate, get out of my head!! Stop reading my mind!!!! Dirty psychic...:D

[Ashles]

No jambo no. You are getting this all very badly wrong. Are you doing this on purpose?

Scepticism involves questioning theories and observations.
Scepticism is NOT outright dismissal - you have been apparently brainwashed into thinking that.

Take a look at Louis Pasteur's germ theory, other scientists were SCEPTICAL about his ideas but look at what he done. If these other scientists had had their way where would we be now ?
Scientists DID have 'their way'. They tested the theories and found it to be incredibly useful.
You have, yet again, given an example in which scientific method has been successfully used.

Alexander Fleming and Penicillin are another case - it wasn't discovered by the sceptical method you describe it was discovered at random by a Penicillium notatum spore landing on a neglected culture plate and producing a substance that killed the staphylococci growing on it.
You really are looking a bit silly now jambo. A lucky accident happened. The results were observed. Theories were developed and tested. Penicillium was isolated and its properties tested and utilised.
A triumph of scientific process.

Your understanding of the word sceptic appears to be woefully wrong. The way you are uing it seems to imply that you think scepticism is about saying "No" to everything. It is not. If that were the case you would never have heard of Penicillin or Louis Pasteur or quntum physics or plate tectonics, or, almost anything.
Scepticism involves asking "Show me evidence and repeatability" not just blindly trusting anyone who claims something.

Why do you not believe in Uri Geller any more? Because sceptics analysed his claims and demonstrated his fakery. That's a sceptical process. Without it you'd still happily believe he can do what he claims.

Scepticism is not about concealing the truth, it is about trying to unearth it by throwing many questions at claims and seeing if they stand up.

Why do you not understand this? You want to be a scientist, yet you don't understand this process? Do you just believe every single thing you are told? If not, why not? It is a sceptical procedure of your own designed to try and tell what is true.

Scepticism in science is just much more rigorous than your own personal scepticism, because it is dealing with trying to find scientific facts that can be used for the future.

It is a useful tool in life and without it you will be taken in by many charletans, fakers and liars. In my opinion you already have been - by the readers and the White Witch with her 'report' which you haven't seen.

[Dr Adequate]

"Synchronicity can happen almost any time." --- Ursula K. Le Guin.

[Hellbound]

"Coincidentally, coincidences do happen" - Me, just now.

[jambo372]

Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence - unlike most paranormal / alternative healing sceptics.
If I wanted to have a career in science my beliefs in these things wouldn't disrupt it.

Ashles
I didn't lose belief in Uri Geller because of sceptics - I lost belief in him because he was caught out by relatives and friends and was too open with them about his methods of trickery.

I wasn't talking abot the SCENT of pine disinfectant - 2 chemicals from pine are used - one has little antibacterial property and is added solely for scent but the other is added for antibacterial properties.

Taken in by charlatans - you can't prove the mediums I see are charlatans - you don't even know them.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence - unlike most paranormal / alternative healing sceptics.
Oh for pete's sake, he's discovered that we're No True Scotsmen. Dolt.

SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! Just as soon, for example, as you show me some EVIDENCE that mugwort is an effective treatment for seizures, then I will believe that mugwort is an effective treatment for seizures. Until then, I won't.

[Dr Adequate]

Originally posted by jambo372
Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence - unlike most paranormal / alternative healing sceptics.
If I wanted to have a career in science my beliefs in these things wouldn't disrupt it.
The abysmally low standards of evidence you accept, and your unwillingness to do any research, plus the posture with closed mind, eyes tight shut and fingers in ears, will give you a bit of a problem, however, old bean.
Taken in by charlatans - you can't prove the mediums I see are charlatans - you don't even know them.
That would indeed cause problems in debunking them. Perhaps next time you go, you could take a tape recorder. Or tell them about the $1,000,000 for which they're eligible. I'm sure they'll be thrilled.

[jambo372]

Why would I want to do that ?
I am not a sceptic ( thank God ), I support them in their work and have no wish to debunk them. Whether or not they take the challenge is up to them and most of them are only interested in other mediums and believers anyway.
I don't accept low standards of evidence.

[Soapy Sam]

Jambo said- "...If I wanted to have a career in science my beliefs in these things wouldn't disrupt it."

Word to the wise: You may be able to hold a mix of rationalist scientific and less rational pseudoscientific views, without experiencing cross confusion or demonstrating inconsistent attitudes. Many people do and hold down successful careers in science or medicine.

However, I strongly advise you not to advertise your beliefs (should you still hold them) when you get to university. You may not respect your teachers , but believe me, it helps if they respect you. The work is hard enough without swimming against the tide.

By the way, nobody here thinks sceptics or scientists (not the same thing) are better, nicer, kinder or morally superior people.
We just think they use better tools.

Using dull tools is daft.

Keep defending your corner here, please. I don't know if you think you learn much in these threads, but I know I do.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't accept low standards of evidence. You could have fooled me! :D

Rolfe.

[jambo372]

As I've said before several serious scientists eg Sir William Crookes were firm believers in spiritualism and this didn't affect their work and I don't care if I'm not respected and when and if I get to university - why would I want to advertise my beliefs ? ( I'm certain I'll still hold them. )

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
As I've said before several serious scientists eg Sir William Crookes were firm believers in spiritualism and this didn't affect their work and I don't care if I'm not respected and when and if I get to university - why would I want to advertise my beliefs ? ( I'm certain I'll still hold them. )

It's not your belifes it's your way of thinking.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by geni
It's not your belifes it's your way of thinking. Exactly.

I'm a Christian, and I haven't kept this a secret, and I haven't noticed anyone think the worse of me for this. (I stay away from the Religion part of the forum because the number of straw men is bad for my hay fever :D .) MLynn too. And though I'm not sure what brand of theist BSM is, he's another. We all participate happily in the scientific aspects of the discussion on this forum.

Insisting that you believe things that are objectively testable as false in the real world, however, and yet maintaining that these beliefs do not affect your credibility in science, is pure wishful thinking.

Rolfe.

[Mojo]

Originally posted by jambo372
Yes but the scientists changed their minds once they saw the evidence
That is precisely how the scientific method (and indeed skepticism) works. You have to be prepared to admit that you are wrong if that's what the evidence shows.

[jambo372]

That's exactly what I'm saying - in many cases I've mentioned there is NO evidence to say they're wrong.

[The Mighty Thor]

jambo372 in laboratory some time in the future . . .

Lab Director: "Right, jambo, it's time to put mugwort under proper scientific scrutiny with some double-blind tests into its efficacy in treating seizures. Where will we start?"

jambo372: "Oh, no need to go to all that bother, Mr Director. I know it works."

Lab Director: "How so?"

jambo372: "Well, Mrs MacTavish who goes to my spiritualist church is a fully qualified herbalist and she told me it works."

Lab Director: "I don't think you are suited to this type of work, young man. Please clear your desk and leave the building. Your final paycheck will be posted to you."
:(

You didn't tell us why you are so antipathetic to sceptics. I ask again: Do you think scepticism is somehow a bad thing, and, if so, why?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
That's exactly what I'm saying - in many cases I've mentioned there is NO evidence to say they're wrong.

You have got it, to use the colloquial phrase, totally arse for elbow! Your comprehension of what is being said to you here is severely lacking, jambo.:(

[jambo372]

I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
Why would a microbiologist test the effect of mugwort on seizures anyway ?

I know no one by the name of MacTavish :confused: :confused:

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
How many psychics have to turn out to be frauds before you put the burden of proof on the psychics themselves?

And how they squirm when you do!

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
Why would a microbiologist test the effect of mugwort on seizures anyway ?

I know no one by the name of MacTavish :confused: :confused:

Warning, Will Robinson! Sense of humour failure!;)

But did you come here to try to learn something, or just to knock Randi? To be honest, you don't seem to be taking in what is being said to you.

I bet your woo woo friends say sceptics are just a bunch of 'know it alls', or 'smart Alecs'. True or false?

[jambo372]

You still have no right to accuse them without proof.
My woo woo friends ?
If you mean psychics and other believers most of them never discuss scepticism because they don't feel they need any more proof.

[geni]

Originally posted by jambo372
I don't think scepticism is a bad thing but some people take it too far by making slagging & making unproven accusations of fraud against mediums, psychics and healers and their believers.
Why would a microbiologist test the effect of mugwort on seizures anyway ?



On the basis that a worry numeber of chemists end up as biologists (and about 10 percent up as accountants) you would be amazed what a microbilogist could end up doing.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by jambo372
You still have no right to accuse them without proof.
My woo woo friends ?
If you mean psychics and other believers most of them never discuss scepticism because they don't feel they need any more proof.

OK. Do you believe that ALL psychics and mediums are in touch with dead people, or just SOME?

How do you differentiate between a genuine psychic or medium and a false one?

Do you think that false psychics and mediums are frauds?

Have you, personally, had anything you would call 'proof' from a psychic or medium that convinced you they were genuine? (I'm not talking about anecdotal -- somebody told somebody -- evidence, but something that really convinced you on a one-to-one basis)

Like what?

If there are real psychics and mediums, why have none ever won the million dollar prize?

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Zombified
How many psychics have to turn out to be frauds before you put the burden of proof on the psychics themselves?


Where, of course, it should be in the first place. The 'one white crow' method gets us nowhere. And a whole murder of white crows is just all the more improbable.

http://www.hintsandthings.co.uk/kennel/collectives.htm

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by cajela
Traditional medicines can be good places to look for new drugs. After all, it's not like homeopathy; there are actually active ingredients in there. St John's Wort does seem to be quite psychoactive, for one.

If you're interested in depression, here is a proper medical journal review of complementary treatments, which ranks the quality of the evidence.


Big problem is that the stuff sold on the shelves is not consistent in their amounts of active ingredient, and people are even arguing over WHAT the active ingredient is. You might as well be using homeopathy since you have no idea if the product contains anything that would be beneficial.

Not to mention, St. John's Wort in a reasonable dosage interferes with the birth control pill. So, you maybe will get enough active ingredient to have an effect, but the side effect (if you are unware of it and a woman on the pill) will just create some unforseen circumstances. Maybe it's a good thing that most bottles won't contain enough of anything that could have any effect.

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jambo372
That's exactly what I'm saying - in many cases I've mentioned there is NO evidence to say they're wrong. Absense of evidence that they're wrong does not equal presence of evidence that they're right.

A sceptic declines to come to a decision until some evidence is available.

A creduloid "believes" with no evidence. Your problem is that you insist that you believe stuff which is eminently falsifiable, simply because nobody seems to have actually done the experiments. The correct attitude is open-mindedness until the evidence is available. But no, you just know.

Spot the problem with that?

Rolfe.

[jambo372]

No I don't think all mediums are in touch with the dead - just some of them.

The reason I believe in some of them is because they don't ask questions and are far too accurate to be passed of as cold readers and had no opportunity prior to the sitting to stalk up on information to use for hot reading.

On the other hand some have easy access to information and / or are obviously cold reading via guesswork and questions.

Do I think fake mediums are frauds ?
I never really go to mediums who charge for sittings ( tight arse
:D ), so I don't consider the ones I consider fake to be frauds as they have obviously no financial motive - I feel that some of them just want to comfort people, some are deluded and that the remainder of the fakes are just attention seekers.

If there are real mediums why have none ever won the $ 1,000,000 challenge prize ?
Some mediums wouldn't even know their was such a prize on offer and some just don't bother associating with sceptics as they feel they've a hostile attitude.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jambo372
No I don't think all mediums are in touch with the dead - just some of them.

The reason I believe in some of them is because they don't ask questions and are far too accurate to be passed of as cold readers and had no opportunity prior to the sitting to stalk up on information to use for hot reading.
Would you care to name these mediums you feel are legitimate?

So far as mediums not knowing about the $1M challenge goes, feel free to let them know - the more people hear about it the better.

[jambo372]

Zombified
I gave a list of the mediums in another thread.

Rolfe
My decisions weren't made solely on the fact that the contrary remains unproven - despite being few in number certain psychics/mediums have been declared genuine by repeated testing :

Daniel Douglas Home was examined repeatedly by many scientists and magicians who concluded that his abilities of mediumship and psychokinesis were indeed genuine.

Nina Kulagina better known in her native Leningrad as Nelya Mikhailova was tested repeatedly by several scientists. After ten years of exhaustive scrutiny and testing, The Soviet Academy Of Sciences declared her abilities to be genuine.

Whenever cases like these are mentioned to sceptics however they just deny that tests were done or accuse the scientists and magicians who carried out the testing.

[Eos of the Eons]

Originally posted by jambo372
Zombified

Whenever cases like these are mentioned to sceptics however they just deny that tests were done or accuse the scientists and magicians who carried out the testing.

Present the tests done. We can analyze their data taking techniques. Did she get 100% accurate word for word of what someone was thinking? Were these thoughts scribbled on paper and revealed to nobody before the test? How can you prove the person had these thoughts streaming through their head when the psychic is "channeling"?

Or,

How can you prove if a dead person is talking to someone when you can't hear the dead person yourself? You can't record what the "dead person" is saying. The test showed she got some ambiguous stuff "right"?

If I hear a dead person saying the sun will rise tomorrow, do I win the million? Obvious reasons, no. Heck, I can say a whacky dead person is saying the sun WON'T rise tomorrow.

So, please provide the tests and results.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jambo372
Daniel Douglas Home was examined repeatedly by many scientists and magicians who concluded that his abilities of mediumship and psychokinesis were indeed genuine.
References? Which scientists?
Nina Kulagina better known in her native Leningrad as Nelya Mikhailova was tested repeatedly by several scientists. After ten years of exhaustive scrutiny and testing, The Soviet Academy Of Sciences declared her abilities to be genuine.Again, references? Was this before or after Lysenko?
Whenever cases like these are mentioned to sceptics however they just deny that tests were done or accuse the scientists and magicians who carried out the testing. Now, how do those crafty skeptics get away with this if the evidence is so clear?

[Rolfe]

Originally posted by jambo372
Rolfe
My decisions weren't made solely on the fact that the contrary remains unproven - despite being few in number certain psychics/mediums have been declared genuine by repeated testing :This thread is entitled "herbal healing". I was referring to your apparently firm beliefs that certain substances have therapeutic properties despite never having passed any clinical trials in that respect. Real medicines are prohibited from having therapeutic claims made about them until such trials have been passed. Until then, any claims are regarded as questionable.

Your willingness to believe without positive evidence (regarding therapeutic properties of herbs) is wholly unscientific and a disgraceful attitude for anyone who is or aspires to be involved in any aspect of healthcare.

Your beliefs about talking to dead people are your own affair, as far as I;m concerned.

Rolfe.

[The Mighty Thor]

Originally posted by Rolfe
This thread is entitled "herbal healing". I was referring to your apparently firm beliefs that certain substances have therapeutic properties despite never having passed any clinical trials in that respect. Real medicines are prohibited from having therapeutic claims made about them until such trials have been passed. Until then, any claims are regarded as questionable.

Your willingness to believe without positive evidence (regarding therapeutic properties of herbs) is wholly unscientific and a disgraceful attitude for anyone who is or aspires to be involved in any aspect of healthcare.

Your beliefs about talking to dead people are your own affair, as far as I;m concerned.

Rolfe.

As geni said to jambo higher up:

It's not your beliefs it's your way of thinking.

jambo has been very forthright about his pretty widespread beliefs in the paranormal. It is refreshing to see that he has not resorted to ad homs or abusive arguments. But his lack of critical thinking on the herbalist issue stems from the same general credulous attitude to the paranormal.

The major problem is that he does not seem to understand the scientific method of testing extraordinary claims. It is possible he just didn't know how things are done in the respected scientific community. This is where Targ, Puthoff and the other Zammit crowd of psuedoscientists do so much damage. They tell supporters of the paranormal that they have scientific evidence of genuine paranormal happenings. That is just plain, flat out wrong.

I hope jambo has just got it wrong about what scepticism is all about. What it really is has been expressed quite eloquently by others, and if he has taken that on board, then he has learned something.

I think we all wish him well with his studies and his proposed career. The sceptics here were giving advice as to the kind of critical thinking that science requires. He may not see this now, but it will probably dawn on him later in life.

At the very least, if he did not know about peer-reviewed papers and the like, he does now. That has to be a good thing.

Maybe the JREF should award him a years subscription to one of the recognised scientific publications for being a believer that can post without abusing the opposition .:) :) :)

[jambo372]

Eos of the Eons & Zombified
Why would she get 100 % accurate word for word of what someone was thinking ? - she's a psyckokineticist ie. she is able to move objects via intense concentration on them, this is what the tests were carried out on not telepathy although she supposedly possessed that as well. She also had a similar ability to the one claimed by Natasha Demkina and Rosa Kuleshova which was also tested.

How can you prove a dead person is talking to a medium if you can't hear the dead person yourself?
The example I gave was that of DD Home , he was a PHYSICAL medium, unlike mental mediums who just pass on information via their own mouth from spirit to sitter, a physical medium channels the actual voice of a dead person and causes spirits to materialise into ectoplasmic forms and cause objects to move and levitate - so in his case you would hear the dead person yourself.

See the following links :
http://www.noahsarksoc.com/

http://www.perceptions.couk.com/ghosty.html

http://www.williamjames.com/Folklore/MINDOVER.htm

http://www.mysteriouspeople.com/Nina Kulagina.htm

Rolfe
My willingness to believe without positive evidence ?
Research shows they may well have therapeutically active compounds in them.

[jambo372]

Mighty Thor
Maybe the JREF should award him a years subscription to one of the recognised scientific publications for being a believer who can post without abusing the opposition.

I would NOT accept anything from James Randi.
Incidentally I've saw abuse on this forum from scetics to believers so the problem can be considered mutual.

[The Mighty Thor]

jambo was chided above for citing the digitalis tale regarding William Withering's contact with a gypsy herbalist. I wonder if this is a myth, or, true.

It is certainly true that:

Dr William Withering, physician, was a drug pusher and a lunatic.

:) :) :)

http://www.ch.ic.ac.uk/vchemlib/mim/bristol/digitalis/digitalis_text.htm

http://www2.exnet.com/magsample/science.html

http://www.killerplan