More: No link whatsoever between vaccines and autism
LeKiwi
Veteran
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
I have been a hippie herbalist/acupressure/organic whatever fan. I was for many years. I still avoid (compared to most people, though I do take myself and my kid to a doctor) taking my kid to the doctor because I am skeptical about mainstream medicine and drugs. I just am not a sucker for alt med any more. I have been where you are, except I never was against vaccines. So spare me the "open your mind a bit" silliness. It does not apply to me.
I have no problem with herbal remedies, I am a fan if ginkgo myself. I just want some scientific research on them so I know I'm not taking something that is just a placebo. Also, scientific research is needed to find out what compounds in the herbs are the active ingredients, this allows chemists to synthesize those compounds artificially into a pill in order to eliminate the side effects from other compounds in the herbs.
Several of them have had scientific studies done on them.
They have, and they do work. Echinacea is brilliant for warding off or reducing the symptoms and duration of colds, one of my favourites I won't live without in winter.
The problem with making them into drugs though is that it's the WHOLE herb that does it; not just the 'active' part they find and synthesise. You need the whole thing as that's how it grows naturally and how we're naturally meant to take it in, as just another part of the flora and fauna of the planet. We weren't designed to just have the 'active' part; we're designed to use the entire thing and all its energy to heal. That's one of the key points of difference between holisitic and allopathic medical protocols.
_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...
The problem with making them into drugs though is that it's the WHOLE herb that does it; not just the 'active' part they find and synthesise. You need the whole thing as that's how it grows naturally and how we're naturally meant to take it in, as just another part of the flora and fauna of the planet. We weren't designed to just have the 'active' part; we're designed to use the entire thing and all its energy to heal. That's one of the key points of difference between holisitic and allopathic medical protocols.
New Age BS. I'm a biochemist, I am not fooled by such stupid unscientific arguments. herbs work because they have substances in them that mimic the activity of co-enzymes, hormones, neurotransmitters, and other small biomolecules that are important in regulating enzyme activity and in cell-to-cell communication among other things. it is THOSE PARTICULAR COMPOUNDS that cause the physiological effect on the body, not some BS concept about the entire herb "being designed" to be consumed by us, because those active compounds did not evolve for our benefit, they evolved to repel insects and such compounds benefit us purely by coincidence. There is no such thing as "naturally meant to" in biology, teleological explanations has no place in the biosciences.
The problem with making them into drugs though is that it's the WHOLE herb that does it; not just the 'active' part they find and synthesise. You need the whole thing as that's how it grows naturally and how we're naturally meant to take it in, as just another part of the flora and fauna of the planet. We weren't designed to just have the 'active' part; we're designed to use the entire thing and all its energy to heal. That's one of the key points of difference between holisitic and allopathic medical protocols.
New Age BS. I'm a biochemist, I am not fooled by such stupid unscientific arguments. herbs work because they have substances in them that mimic the activity of co-enzymes, hormones, neurotransmitters, and other small biomolecules that are important in regulating enzyme activity and in cell-to-cell communication among other things. it is THOSE PARTICULAR COMPOUNDS that cause the physiological effect on the body, not some BS concept about the entire herb "being designed" to be consumed by us, because those active compounds did not evolve for our benefit, they evolved to repel insects and such compounds benefit us purely by coincidence. There is no such thing as "naturally meant to" in biology, teleological explanations has no place in the biosciences.
Although there are some natural versions which have a better effect than our synthetic versions. (Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but sometimes it's a compound combination found in plants, etc., that works the best rather than singling out a single compound and making it synthetically into a supplement.)
_________________
My Science blog, Science Over a Cuppa - http://insolemexumbra.wordpress.com/
My partner's autism science blog, Cortical Chauvinism - http://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/
Except that as shown in this study, published in the New England Journal of Medicine, echinacea was proven to be ineffective in affecting duration or severity of rhinovirus infections. Again, I like scientific investigations, not anecdotes.
_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.
LeKiwi
Veteran
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
The problem with making them into drugs though is that it's the WHOLE herb that does it; not just the 'active' part they find and synthesise. You need the whole thing as that's how it grows naturally and how we're naturally meant to take it in, as just another part of the flora and fauna of the planet. We weren't designed to just have the 'active' part; we're designed to use the entire thing and all its energy to heal. That's one of the key points of difference between holisitic and allopathic medical protocols.
New Age BS. I'm a biochemist, I am not fooled by such stupid unscientific arguments. herbs work because they have substances in them that mimic the activity of co-enzymes, hormones, neurotransmitters, and other small biomolecules that are important in regulating enzyme activity and in cell-to-cell communication among other things. it is THOSE PARTICULAR COMPOUNDS that cause the physiological effect on the body, not some BS concept about the entire herb "being designed" to be consumed by us, because those active compounds did not evolve for our benefit, they evolved to repel insects and such compounds benefit us purely by coincidence. There is no such thing as "naturally meant to" in biology, teleological explanations has no place in the biosciences.
Although there are some natural versions which have a better effect than our synthetic versions. (Not that I'm disagreeing with you, but sometimes it's a compound combination found in plants, etc., that works the best rather than singling out a single compound and making it synthetically into a supplement.)
Exactly why the natural version is what you should be after. It isn't 'New age BS' at all; it's that the compounds work together, in the right proportions, as they're found in nature. What's the point in synthetically creating what's already found in nature anyway? Other than for profits there isn't really any point.
And, err, Deacon, there are dozens of other studies that say that yes, echinacea DOES work, it has been proven. That's scientific studies, alongside the millions of people who swear by it and the centuries it's been in use for precisely that. I can pick and choose studies too, wow, clever.
_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...
I've heard that ginger plants are endangered in many areas (including here in Minnesota) by over-harvesting. It is much cheaper and more environmentally friendly to synthesize such compounds artificially.
LeKiwi
Veteran
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
I've heard that ginger plants are endangered in many areas (including here in Minnesota) by over-harvesting. It is much cheaper and more environmentally friendly to synthesize such compounds artificially.
That's in the US; ginger isn't endangered. If agriculture in the US was less pro-GE and more about organic sustainability it'd probably be a lot more conducive to things growing better. It could also just be climate? I know the climate is slowly changing in Australasia and in the UK (in both places I've found the seasons are a lot different from when I was younger... wetter/warmer/cooler/etc - for goodness sakes, it's January and there are daffodils and blossom everywhere here!) so perhaps it's simply the changing climate having an effect? Either way it's not endangered!!
To get the full effect you'd need to be synthesising the entire plant anyway... you can take just a single compound from it, but it won't do the same thing as it would if you were to consume it 'as is'. (Plus ew, can you imagine what fake ginger would taste like in food?! )
_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...
I support genetically engineered food that is grown organically.
Nonsense, it is, at the very most, only a handful of compounds in a plant that function as drugs in the human body (if on excludes very simple "nutritional" things like the amino acid tyrosine in turkey and milk making you sleepy)
LeKiwi
Veteran
Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,444
Location: The murky waters of my mind...
Haha, see I'm verrrrrrrrrrrry against Genetic Engineering. But let's save that for another thread.
I guess it's just a case of differing viewpoints... to me, the way it works is through the whole plant and everything in it in the natural proportions and combinations. I'm sure some of the compounds in isolation do work, but when I've tried they never work as well or in the same way. One day I'm sure science will understand it and 'catch up' on what herbalists say, but for the meantime... I'll keep eating my ginger au naturelle.
_________________
We are a fever, we are a fever, we ain't born typical...
I'm not so sure about that. Could you give some evidence supporting that conclusion?
Are you meaning in a universal sense, or a neurological one? (I don't have research to support the former.)
Invisible robot fish.
Touché.
_________________
My Science blog, Science Over a Cuppa - http://insolemexumbra.wordpress.com/
My partner's autism science blog, Cortical Chauvinism - http://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/
I'm not so sure about that. Could you give some evidence supporting that conclusion?
Are you meaning in a universal sense, or a neurological one? (I don't have research to support the former.)
Both I suppose. I would settle for a neurological sense if that's all you've got research for though.
_________________
Q: "Humans are such commonplace little creatures."
--"Deja Q"
Have you a link to one of those "dozens of studies"? The article in the New England Journal of Medicine was the only reference I found.
Or is it something you feel to be true, like the bit about chemical compounds somehow working better in combination with inert compounds, just because they both occur in the same plant?
_________________
Sodium is a metal that reacts explosively when exposed to water. Chlorine is a gas that'll kill you dead in moments. Together they make my fries taste good.
Similar Topics | |
---|---|
Link between Hernias and Autism in Women? |
24 Oct 2024, 11:33 am |
Autism and Emotional Dysregulation: Understanding the Link |
29 Nov 2024, 9:55 am |
Having Autism |
23 Nov 2024, 9:49 am |
Teenager with Autism and OCD |
05 Dec 2024, 6:45 am |