Follow
Except so called alternative medicine as a treatment used to be very popular with women before the so called Covid 19 pandemic
There are a lot of traditional herbal medicines claimed to be tested by the scientific method that are no longer considered to be alternative medicine to some people
Some people only claim to classify medical claims that have not been confirmed by science whatever that means as alternative medicine
Where they say if it is a herbal treatment confirmed by science then it is not alternative medicine
Some people have told me this way
My opinion is that a lot of treatments in so called traditional Chinese medicine are explained in a language that makes absolutely no sense and can not be tested because you do not know what the claim is
They are claims handed down from an ancient foreign language that people do not know how to translate correctly into the language of modern physics or modern Chemistry
Many of these practices such as use of mercury have been proven unhealthy for generations
Whole article about how there was evidence of poisoning by Chinese Alchemical Elixirs but these Elixirs continued to be used for 2000 years in spite of all the people poisoned in the 2000 year history
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_alchemical_elixir_poisoning
@shortstories @CapitalB
I'm not prepared to claim that all ancient medicine is legit. Far from it.
Moreover a lot of the context has been lost in translation. A good example of that is the doctrine of signatures. People think it means that if a leaf has a vaguely liver shape, then the plant must be good for the liver. In reality it's a mnemonic system. If you already know that a plant is good for xyz illness, then if you can also identify a feature of the plant that aligns with that, it makes it far easier to remember among the hundreds of other medicinal plants one needs to memorise. It also makes it far easier to teach that knowledge to the next generation. So, it's not always just a matter of ancient people having incorrect understanding, but about modern people missing the proper context of the knowledge and skills concerned (and no small degree of ignorant conceit).
Another thing to consider is that plants evolve over time, both through environmental pressures and through human cultivation. So what might have had a certain medical usage in ancient times, may or may not still hold true to the same extent today. Then there's the identification. Prior to Linnaeus there was no uniform way to identify a plant, nor to differentiate sub-species or local variations with much accuracy. Botanical science has come a long way since then.
The thing I'd caution about scientific validation though is that firstly, scientists typically only study one isolated molecule at a time. They mainly only study it in animal trials (eg. mice, rats, livestock, etc), which may or may not bear any relation to how it interacts with human physiology. Rarely do they account for the entourage effect, or make an effort to understand how growing cycle and growing conditions effect the concentration of properties. And most importantly, they only study plants which have commercial/financial value to the pharmaceuticals industry, which normally rules out gaining any credible information about things a regular person can harvest for free from underfoot in their own yard. So frankly I don't use scientific validation as a benchmark. It's a nice anecdote to corroborate the centuries of prior use, but the lack of scientific validation has little to no weight in my opinion.
I'm not prepared to claim that all ancient medicine is legit. Far from it.
Moreover a lot of the context has been lost in translation. A good example of that is the doctrine of signatures. People think it means that if a leaf has a vaguely liver shape, then the plant must be good for the liver. In reality it's a mnemonic system. If you already know that a plant is good for xyz illness, then if you can also identify a feature of the plant that aligns with that, it makes it far easier to remember among the hundreds of other medicinal plants one needs to memorise. It also makes it far easier to teach that knowledge to the next generation. So, it's not always just a matter of ancient people having incorrect understanding, but about modern people missing the proper context of the knowledge and skills concerned (and no small degree of ignorant conceit).
Another thing to consider is that plants evolve over time, both through environmental pressures and through human cultivation. So what might have had a certain medical usage in ancient times, may or may not still hold true to the same extent today. Then there's the identification. Prior to Linnaeus there was no uniform way to identify a plant, nor to differentiate sub-species or local variations with much accuracy. Botanical science has come a long way since then.
The thing I'd caution about scientific validation though is that firstly, scientists typically only study one isolated molecule at a time. They mainly only study it in animal trials (eg. mice, rats, livestock, etc), which may or may not bear any relation to how it interacts with human physiology. Rarely do they account for the entourage effect, or make an effort to understand how growing cycle and growing conditions effect the concentration of properties. And most importantly, they only study plants which have commercial/financial value to the pharmaceuticals industry, which normally rules out gaining any credible information about things a regular person can harvest for free from underfoot in their own yard. So frankly I don't use scientific validation as a benchmark. It's a nice anecdote to corroborate the centuries of prior use, but the lack of scientific validation has little to no weight in my opinion.
@shortstories @CapitalB
Incidentally, one issue I have with modern herbalism is there are a lot of folks who are promoting so called "medical astrology". I know a few personally. I honestly think that's an embarrassing level of stupidity. That's not to say that astrology has no place in herbalism, because I think just like the doctrine of signatures it's an excellent basis for a mnemonic system to help keep track of plants and their usage according to categories of behaviour and characteristics. But that's far far from thinking one can prognosticate the nature of a person's illness or what medicine they should take based on their birth chart or what astronomical phenomena are occurring at the moment. That latter application is patently retarded. So much of what we think we know about stuff has more the quality of a superstition than it does of anything that makes rational sense upon closer examination, and frankly the continued promotion of stuff like that does more to convince people that traditional medicine as a whole is bogus than it does to help matters.
Incidentally, one issue I have with modern herbalism is there are a lot of folks who are promoting so called "medical astrology". I know a few personally. I honestly think that's an embarrassing level of stupidity. That's not to say that astrology has no place in herbalism, because I think just like the doctrine of signatures it's an excellent basis for a mnemonic system to help keep track of plants and their usage according to categories of behaviour and characteristics. But that's far far from thinking one can prognosticate the nature of a person's illness or what medicine they should take based on their birth chart or what astronomical phenomena are occurring at the moment. That latter application is patently retarded. So much of what we think we know about stuff has more the quality of a superstition than it does of anything that makes rational sense upon closer examination, and frankly the continued promotion of stuff like that does more to convince people that traditional medicine as a whole is bogus than it does to help matters.
@shortstories @toiletpaper @CapitalB This is a textbook example of "no true Scotsman". Ivermectin is the furthest thing from an herbal medicine, it's completely synthetic, yet 5 years ago you were called a quack if you even mentioned it. There are many things that are tested and shown to have some effect but widely ignored because they can't be patented and sold, so you have to go to an "alternative medicine" doctor to get them.
The truth is that medicine is one of the least scientifically verified fields because 80%+ of studies can't be verified, many of the drugs that have been verified were fraudulent (statins, for example), and when there's no money in a natural item it's poorly studied. Even then, when the company is not big and connected, it can get harassed by the feds even when they do cite scientific studies, like when the feds fined walnut sellers for making heart health claims while allowing junk food makers to say the same.
https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/8/fda-says...
The truth is that medicine is one of the least scientifically verified fields because 80%+ of studies can't be verified, many of the drugs that have been verified were fraudulent (statins, for example), and when there's no money in a natural item it's poorly studied. Even then, when the company is not big and connected, it can get harassed by the feds even when they do cite scientific studies, like when the feds fined walnut sellers for making heart health claims while allowing junk food makers to say the same.
https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2011/8/fda-says...
@PoalackJokes88 @shortstories @CapitalB
Ivermectin is synthesised by fermenting the avermectins produced by a soil-dwelling bacterium (Streptomyces avermitilis). Similarly hydroxychloroquine is a synthetic derived from chloroquine, which was developed as an alternative to quinine made from the bark of a cinchona tree. In this case they developed the synthetic derivatives due to over-harvesting the tree and driving it close to extinction.
A buddy of mine produced a herb based energy drink and got sued into oblivion for listing the medical contraindications on the label. A competing major soft-drink company had some of the same ingredients in their product and were afraid that if people found out it was potentially dangerous, they'd lose money. So they sued my friend to prevent him from labelling his product responsibly, and my buddy refused to remove the warnings and instead just discontinued the product. That's how this shit works.
Ivermectin is synthesised by fermenting the avermectins produced by a soil-dwelling bacterium (Streptomyces avermitilis). Similarly hydroxychloroquine is a synthetic derived from chloroquine, which was developed as an alternative to quinine made from the bark of a cinchona tree. In this case they developed the synthetic derivatives due to over-harvesting the tree and driving it close to extinction.
A buddy of mine produced a herb based energy drink and got sued into oblivion for listing the medical contraindications on the label. A competing major soft-drink company had some of the same ingredients in their product and were afraid that if people found out it was potentially dangerous, they'd lose money. So they sued my friend to prevent him from labelling his product responsibly, and my buddy refused to remove the warnings and instead just discontinued the product. That's how this shit works.
@toiletpaper @shortstories @CapitalB >Ivermectin, Hydroxychloroquine
Interesting, I didn't know that about the former. Most medicines are based on natural things originally but I assumed it was a pure chemical synthesis. For the latter I did know about that, I even started drinking tonic water when I got covid (not that it has much in it, but it was easy to get at least).
>Drink
That's terrible, but not at all surprising. Our system really is run by criminals at so many levels.
Interesting, I didn't know that about the former. Most medicines are based on natural things originally but I assumed it was a pure chemical synthesis. For the latter I did know about that, I even started drinking tonic water when I got covid (not that it has much in it, but it was easy to get at least).
>Drink
That's terrible, but not at all surprising. Our system really is run by criminals at so many levels.
> so called alternative medicine
Upwards of 80% of the world population rely on herbalism as their main source of health care as they have done for arguably hundreds of thousands of years. So as you say, what really is the "alternative" or "newage" (rhymes with sewage) medicine in the scenario...
To say nothing of the fact that the bulk of pharmaceuticals are derived from botanical sources, maybe with their main constituent tweaked slightly and synthesised in a lab to be able to qualify for a patent.