is not the Natural way to health better than pharmaceuticals ?

yah. not as powerful, not by la long shot. facts is facts.

yah. not as powerful, not by la long shot. facts is facts.

what is not as powerful ?

just to be clear

It depends. For some people that might have adverse reactions to synthetic pharma, natural medicine may be a good option.

It depends. For some people that might have adverse reactions to synthetic pharma, natural medicine may be a good option.

its not just about adverse reactions

Suzanne Somers had Breast Cancer , she cured herself with the Natural approach

pharma should only be used as the last resort , only

read her book it is an eye opener , its more for females , young and older but males can also learn from her book , I know I have read it

trust me you will never look at pharma the same and you won't look at Natural healing the same

its not just about adverse reactions

Suzanne Somers had Breast Cancer , she cured herself with the Natural approach

pharma should only be used as the last resort , only

read her book it is an eye opener , its more for females , young and older but males can also learn from her book , I know I have read it

trust me you will never look at pharma the same and you won't look at Natural healing the same

really? Suzanne Somers?

Oprah clip (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/29/suzanne-somers-daily-rout_n_162342.html)

...Suzanne Sommers, 62, went on Oprah on Thursday and told the world how she injects hormones into her vagina, rubs some more on her arms and takes 60 pills every day, all in an attempt to live as long as humanly possible.

She begins with rubbing a syringe of estrogen on one arm, every day. For two weeks out of the month, she rubs progesterone on the other. After that, she injects estriol vaginally, which she graciously spared the audience from watching.

She can’t start her day without taking 40 pills, 15 of which she downs in a thick, yellow smoothie her husband makes for her (she says it’s the secret to their marriage!). Then she ends her day with an additional 20 pills at night before bed....

is not the Natural way to health better than pharmaceuticals ?

Define natural ?

Modern pharmaceuticals are very specifically designed to work with natural processes that take place within our bodies - is that somehow any more unnatural than say using a plant or animal; extract that might or might not work in a similar way?

Death is perfectly natural. Bacterial infections are perfectly natural. Unnaturally refined and synthesized antibiotics can prevent the natural progression of a serious bacterial infection leading to death. Unnatural is fine by me.

Staying healthy to begin with is the best way. That requires keeping fit, eating correctly and staying clean, of course while you are doing all this there are always those amongst us that don't necessarily pull out all the stops for keeping fit, eating correctly or staying clean and this is where illnesses can be spread.

Age is also a factor, the young are more likely to be healthier compared to the old, who will likely require supplements in their diet or have to work harder at keeping their health.

As for what I guess you are referring to as "Homeopathy". It's suggested that a persons immune system is greatly effected by stress, this means you can get ill from being stressed out and not sleeping properly (In fact lack of sleep seriously lowers the immune system). Some people are comforted by a "placebo" effect of Natural ingredients that are posed as medicines, I guess you can say they put Faith in what they believe and this lessens their stress level, thereby strengthening their immune system. This "placebo" effect is the main reason why Medical practitioners don't rate homeopathy very highly since the effect could easily be created just from lessening stress and the natural ingredients might actually do more harm than good. (for instance don't take Hemlock ;) )

Pharmaceuticals are by no means safe either, for the most part studies are conducted in the form of trials however for the most part they are never extensive enough either because of the time needed for a real study to be conducted or because of the costs implied. (Considering pharmaceuticals are an industry where a lot of companies make money, they don't want to hang about if they can make money off a new discovery and sometimes undercut the testing period for profits. Bean counters have been known to suggest in these instances that a "few out of court settlements is worth bypassing the test period for considering the money they can make." which incidentally is not the most Ethical business practice)

It is rather interesting that some of the medicines I take help me in one area but hurt me in another area. As an example I take Lithium for my Bipolar disorder and it affects my liver so much that every 3 months I must take a blood work up to see how my liver is doing. So while I'm being helped in my mental areas my gastrointestinal area is being devastated! :eek:

It is rather interesting that some of the medicines I take help me in one area but hurt me in another area. As an example I take Lithium for my Bipolar disorder and it affects my liver so much that every 3 months I must take a blood work up to see how my liver is doing. So while I'm being helped in my mental areas my gastrointestinal area is being devastated! :eek:

just read Suzzane's book

I'm not saying it has all the answers

but as a guy its definitely worth reading

really

Suzanne Somers had Breast Cancer , she cured herself with the Natural approach

:rolleyes:

Firstly, Suzanne Somers received a mixture of conventional and "natural" treatments, so you cannot rule out that the surgery and radiotherapy she received were responsible for the remission of her breast cancer rather than whatever woo-woo "natural" cancer treatment she received.

Secondly, this is an example of confusing cause and effect. Sometimes people are lucky and their cancers go into spontaneous remission. This is rare. Suzanne Somers is likely to be one of the rare examples of a person whose cancer went into remission despite the woo-woo "natural" treatments she was receiving, thus giving the erroneous impression that it was the woo-woo "natural" treatments that were the cause of the remission. For every Suzanne Somers whose cancer went into remission whilst taking woo-woo "natural" treatments there will be 100 people for whom "natural" cancer treatments have no effect and who die much quicker than would have been the case if they had untaken conventional medical cancer treatments.

:rolleyes:

Firstly, Suzanne Somers received a mixture of conventional and "natural" treatments, so you cannot rule out that the surgery and radiotherapy she received were responsible for the remission of her breast cancer rather than whatever woo-woo "natural" cancer treatment she received.

Secondly, this is an example of confusing cause and effect. Sometimes people are lucky and their cancers go into spontaneous remission. This is rare. Suzanne Somers is likely to be one of the rare examples of a person whose cancer went into remission despite the woo-woo "natural" treatments she was receiving, thus giving the erroneous impression that it was the woo-woo "natural" treatments that were the cause of the remission. For every Suzanne Somers whose cancer went into remission whilst taking woo-woo "natural" treatments there will be 100 people for whom "natural" cancer treatments have no effect and who die much quicker than would have been the case if they had untaken conventional medical cancer treatments.

Agreed.

And as Oleander has pointed out, Somers openly confessed on network TV that she was a "pill junkie." And that's someone I most certainly would not trust for ANY kind of helpful health information!!

Besides all that, this "Natural" business is a farce right on the face of it. Labeling something 'natural' is supposed to somehow equate with 'better' is just sheer nonsense. A falling tree is quite natural but I wouldn't advise standing in it's path. Also, there are numerous plants that quite naturally produce poisonous substances - like members of the nightshade family, poke berry, poinsettias and many, many others. But being natural MUST make them healthy for you to use, right?

Balderdash!!!!!:bugeye:

is not the Natural way to health better than pharmaceuticals ?

What's "Natural"?

If both "natural" and "pharmaceutical" methods involve taking pills, for example, then the only difference I can see is that one method has been rigorously scientifically tested and approved, while the other's efficacy is doubtful and in many cases untested. The "value" of "natural" remedies is often based on anecdotal evidence rather than clinical trials. And far too often, when clinical trials of "natural" medicines and therapies are actually conducted it is found that the "natural" medicines are no better than placebo.

but have you read Suzzane's book " Breakthrough "

( Eight steps to wellness )

( life-Altering secrets from todays cutting-edge Doctors )

apparently not

but have you read Suzzane's book " Breakthrough "

( Eight steps to wellness )

( life-Altering secrets from todays cutting-edge Doctors )

apparently not

Nope, and never will. No one with any brains is going to take that pill-dropping bimbo's advice on ANYTHING. The book is only for idiots.

Man has survived tens of thousands of years with out these new medicins. Yes some are good, but for the most part the ones coming out these days have more side affects than should be allowed, and are not healthy for you.

Man has survived tens of thousands of years with out these new medicins. Yes some are good, but for the most part the ones coming out these days have more side affects than should be allowed, and are not healthy for you.

exactly

“
Originally Posted by thinking
but have you read Suzzane's book " Breakthrough "

( Eight steps to wellness )

( life-Altering secrets from todays cutting-edge Doctors )

apparently not


Nope, and never will. No one with any brains is going to take that pill-dropping bimbo's advice on ANYTHING. The book is only for idiots.

read-only

you lose

“



read-only

you lose

Nope. The stupid, stupid people who bought her book are the loosers.

...but for the most part the ones coming out these days have more side affects than should be allowed,

Reference? Allowed by whom?



...and are not healthy for you.

Reference?

Nope. The stupid, stupid people who bought her book are the loosers.

so stupid people are people that read the book and learn from it

but the "smart people " are those that are ignorant

Reference? Allowed by whom?




Reference?
Reference: the listed side effects.Listen to them in the commercials they are worse than the problem most times.
Pimple medication that make you bleed from the eyes?
Diet pills that give you heart attacks?
Blood presure pills that cause penis dissfigurement?
sleeping pills that cause insomnia?
All you have to do is listen to, or read the side effects and it takes about 2 seconds to figure out that it would be worse than the original problem.

so stupid people are people that read the book and learn from it

but the "smart people " are those that are ignorant

Obviously I'm wasting my time talking with you. You're too bone-headed to recognize the truth and FAR to willing to buy into a stupid myth!

Whatever else you do, kid, do yourself a favor and stay in school - you are in serious need of an education.

Obviously I'm wasting my time talking with you. You're too bone-headed to recognize the truth and FAR to willing to buy into a stupid myth!


Whatever else you do, kid, do yourself a favor and stay in school - you are in serious need of an education.

you are the one who lacks education and an open mind

obviously

Man has survived tens of thousands of years with out these new medicins.

Nonsense.

Life expectancy has increased dramatically, even in the last 50 years. And that's largely down to modern medicine.


Yes some are good, but for the most part the ones coming out these days have more side affects than should be allowed, and are not healthy for you.

Nonsense.

All drugs go through a rigorous approval process. A new drug might be tested for 10 years after its invention before it is approved for general use by actual human patients.

Side effects are generally known precisely because of the rigorous scientific testing that is done. Drugs are only approved if side effects are rare or minimal.


Pimple medication that make you bleed from the eyes?
Diet pills that give you heart attacks?
Blood presure pills that cause penis dissfigurement?
sleeping pills that cause insomnia?
All you have to do is listen to, or read the side effects and it takes about 2 seconds to figure out that it would be worse than the original problem.

Were the medications you are thinking of approved for sale following rigorous scientific testing?

If so, how was it that the scientists and doctors testing these drugs failed to pick up in 10 years what you figured out in 2 seconds?

You must be a genius. You should offer your services to the health industry immediately.

you are the one who lacks education and an open mind

obviously

HA! My education and experience FAR exceeds anything you most likely will ever achieve. You impress me as nothing but a young know-nothing kid who is going to fall for every huckster and con artist that comes along. Only you can correct that - but I doubt if you will make the effort!

HA! My education and experience FAR exceeds anything you most likely will ever achieve. You impress me as nothing but a young know-nothing kid who is going to fall for every huckster and con artist that comes along. Only you can correct that - but I doubt if you will make the effort!

you don't actually impress me at all

despite your education and experience you lack an open mind

which should come with education and experience and wisdom

but you know it all , a god

tell me then what do oxidents mean to the Human body ? without looking it up ?

It is rather interesting that some of the medicines I take help me in one area but hurt me in another area. As an example I take Lithium for my Bipolar disorder and it affects my liver so much that every 3 months I must take a blood work up to see how my liver is doing. So while I'm being helped in my mental areas my gastrointestinal area is being devastated! :eek:

not surprising when you think about it. a lot of medicines were formed from research into toxins

not surprising when you think about it. a lot of medicines were formed from research into toxins

true

Nonsense.

Life expectancy has increased dramatically, even in the last 50 years. And that's largely down to modern medicine.



Nonsense.

All drugs go through a rigorous approval process. A new drug might be tested for 10 years after its invention before it is approved for general use by actual human patients.

Side effects are generally known precisely because of the rigorous scientific testing that is done. Drugs are only approved if side effects are rare or minimal.



Were the medications you are thinking of approved for sale following rigorous scientific testing?

If so, how was it that the scientists and doctors testing these drugs failed to pick up in 10 years what you figured out in 2 seconds?

You must be a genius. You should offer your services to the health industry immediately.

Yup I guess the dergulation of the pharmicudical industry could have nothing to do with it.
30 years ago these same medications would have not made it passed the testing phase.

Funny how every coulpe of years they ban a medication because people start dieing. hmmm government testing must miss a lot.

you don't actually impress me at all

despite your education and experience you lack an open mind

which should come with education and experience and wisdom

but you know it all , a god

tell me then what do oxidents mean to the Human body ? without looking it up ?

Once again you display your sheer ignorance. One can only assume that when you said "oxidents" that you meant "free radicals" - which, yes, are harmful to body tissues.

Incidentally, the correct spelling of the word is really "oxidants" and I doubt if you even understand what oxidation is all about.

Once again you display your sheer ignorance. One can only assume that when you said "oxidents" that you meant "free radicals" - which, yes, are harmful to body tissues.

so what counter acts oxidents or free radicals ?

Natural Medicine as opposed to pharmaceuticals?

sure, but tell'em to legalize marijuana first. Thats the best natural medicine.

so what counter acts oxidents or free radicals ?

Simple: anti-oxidants. They are found in MANY common foods - such as tomatoes, grapes, different, teas and dozens and dozens of other things.

And once again, silly, it's "OXIDANTS" - not "oxidents."

Weed-only...

as I sift through your statements I find you to be a compulsive insulter who belittles nearly everyone you encounter. Pathetic. I can even make a case...I simply search your name and copy all your malicious comments (roughly what...90% of everything you ever say?) and put them all on one thread to expose your cruel hearted mind so that others will have fair warning that they are dealing with a half-witted dote who has little to no social grace...

Weed-only...

as I sift through your statements I find you to be a compulsive insulter who belittles nearly everyone you encounter. Pathetic. I can even make a case...I simply search your name and copy all your malicious comments (roughly what...90% of everything you ever say?) and put them all on one thread to expose your cruel hearted mind so that others will have fair warning that they are dealing with a half-witted dote who has little to no social grace...

Knock yourself out, dummy! My purpose here never was to make friends but to learn (which I do daily) and slap idiots everywhere I encounter them. Your pathetic attempt at trying to give me a put-down only serves to confirm that I'm accomplishing EXACTLY what I intended! :D

Nonsense.

Life expectancy has increased dramatically, even in the last 50 years. And that's largely down to modern medicine.


Uhh, no, he's right actually. Man has survived for tens of thousands of years without many of today's medicines. Average life expectancy and quality of life may not have been as good, but people still survived long enough to breed and produce the next generation.



Nonsense.

All drugs go through a rigorous approval process.

A new drug might be tested for 10 years after its invention before it is approved for general use by actual human patients.

Side effects are generally known precisely because of the rigorous scientific testing that is done. Drugs are only approved if side effects are rare or minimal.


You're living in fairy land. It's always difficult to assess long term side effects (witness thalidomide). And drugs can be approved even if side effects are severe (eg. AZT and cytotoxic cancer drugs).



is not the Natural way to health better than pharmaceuticals ?


You are aware that many medications are natural compounds, or were derived from natural compounds, right? Digoxin, a treatment for congestive heart failure, comes from the foxglove plant. Taxol, an anti-cancer drug, comes from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree. Salicylic acid (the active component of aspirin) comes from the willow tree. Captopril (a blood pressure medication) had its design based on the venom of a pit viper. Pencillin was extracted and purified from Penicillium mold. Need I go on?

It's worth noting that while digoxin comes from a natural source, it can also have some pretty nasty side effects.
Synthetic analogues and tweaking can result in improved efficiacy and fewer side effects when compared with natural compounds.
So yeah, just because a treatment is 'natural' doesn't mean it is less toxic.

“
Originally Posted by thinking
so what counter acts oxidents or free radicals ?


Simple: anti-oxidants. They are found in MANY common foods - such as tomatoes, grapes, different, teas and dozens and dozens of other things.

And once again, silly, it's "OXIDANTS" - not "oxidents."

so anti-oxidants are naturally derived

hmmm.. interesting

Originally Posted by thinking
is not the Natural way to health better than pharmaceuticals ?


You are aware that many medications are natural compounds, or were derived from natural compounds, right? Digoxin, a treatment for congestive heart failure, comes from the foxglove plant. Taxol, an anti-cancer drug, comes from the bark of the Pacific Yew tree. Salicylic acid (the active component of aspirin) comes from the willow tree. Captopril (a blood pressure medication) had its design based on the venom of a pit viper. Penicillin was extracted and purified from Penicillin mold. Need I go on?

It's worth noting that while digoxin comes from a natural source, it can also have some pretty nasty side effects.
Synthetic analogues and tweaking can result in improved efficiency and fewer side effects when compared with natural compounds.
So yeah, just because a treatment is 'natural' doesn't mean it is less toxic.

I understand your point

nothing knew

I know that the natural approach to Health has its dangers

but at the same-time if one takes the natural approach to health , for the most part it gives the body nutrients to fight health problem(s)

whereas pharmas have nothing to do with giving the Human body what it Naturally needs

pharmas are not about pervention but about " if you have "

thats the difference between Natural and pharmas

Natural > prevention of health problems

pharmas > wait till the problem becomes manifest